Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Recycling

Anne Campbell: What percentage of local councils she expects will reach the 2004 targets for the percentage of household rubbish recycled.

Michael Meacher: I cannot predict now what percentage of local authorities will reach their 2003–04 targets. Evidence up to 2001–02 suggests that good progress has been made. That will be augmented by schemes that have been or are being introduced to improve performance.

Anne Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the extra money received by Cambridgeshire waste partnership for the recycling strategy, particularly for the £3.5 million grant announced earlier this year. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the effectiveness of local councils' recycling strategies, particularly in view of some of the claims that are being made. The Liberal Democrats in my constituency sent out a leaflet claiming that 16 per cent. of household rubbish was being recycled, whereas Cambridgeshire waste partnership claimed that only 13 per cent. was recycled. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister can answer the question now.

Michael Meacher: I am pleased that Cambridge succeeded in the challenge fund and that, as a result, it can increase its recycling rate from about 15 per cent. to, I hope, about 26 per cent. in the current year. On my hon. Friend's particular point, local authorities are under a statutory duty to provide accurate information for each best value performance indicator. That information is subject to audit, so any issue about the accuracy of the performance claimed against any indicator should be brought to the attention of the district auditor.

Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has had an answer to her question from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), and the hon. Lady is incorrect in the assertion that she makes.
	In respect of targets, if local authorities dramatically increase recycling, as both we and the Government want, is it not important to have a strong market for the goods collected, so that they are not sent to landfill? What are the Government doing to identify markets to deal with the large increase in recycled products that will occur?

Michael Meacher: We are aware that a successful recycling strategy must have three elements. One is stretching targets, which will increase recycling beyond what would otherwise be the case. We believe that setting statutory recycling targets for local authorities will achieve that. Secondly, adequate funding is necessary. I have repeatedly pointed to the increase in the revenue support grant through the £140 billion challenge fund, and the 60 per cent. increase in private finance initiative money. The third element is, of course, markets. We set up the waste and resources action programme, which is a business at arm's length from Government, to find innovative methods of recovery and reuse of recycled products. It has a £40 million budget and I am aware of several innovative examples, which I want to see multiplied across the economy.

Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for all the good work that the Government have done in this sector, if we do not secure a faster rate of increase in the landfill tax in next week's Budget and if we do not set up a strategic waste authority to co-ordinate the different aspects, we will not make further progress and we will not hit the targets?

Michael Meacher: The Government are well aware of that. We have extremely tough landfill targets to reach. As I have said repeatedly, instead of doubling landfill under the "business as usual" scenario by 2020, we are seeking to reduce it by two thirds by that date, which is extremely demanding. There are two main measures to achieve that: one is the landfill tax escalator—my hon. Friend makes a fair point about the rate of increase, and Ministers have been paying considerable attention to that and will respond to the strategy report shortly—and the other is the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, currently proceeding through the House. Indeed, I left its Committee proceedings five minutes ago. That Bill will set physical limits on the amounts that can be sent to landfill and progressively reduce them year by year.

David Lidington: As the Minister will know, last weekend certain journalists had been briefed to the effect that the Government propose to change the law to allow householders to be charged for the collection of rubbish from their homes. I understand that the Secretary of State persuaded the Deputy Prime Minister of the need for that. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have decided to adopt that policy?

Michael Meacher: That is certainly news to us, but one often learns much from the press about what the Government are alleged to be about to do. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the Government's response to the strategy unit report, which will be published around Budget time. Such a change in the law was just one of the recommendations in that report. The Government are giving careful consideration to it and we shall make our response shortly.

National Park Boundaries

Colin Pickthall: What plans she has to extend the boundaries of national parks.

Margaret Beckett: I have no plans at present to extend the boundaries of any of the existing national parks in England, and I am advised that the Countryside Agency has no plans to undertake any reviews.

Colin Pickthall: I congratulate the Government on their wholly admirable handling of the national parks agenda thus far, but will my right hon. Friend examine the possibility that discrete areas just outside national park boundaries could be added to the national parks without going through a review of the entire parks boundaries? If that were possible, would not it be a good way to protect some of our most valuable landscapes, as it would give them the extra protection that national parks status guarantees? I am thinking particularly about the east and south of the lake district.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Government's record. He is right that, at present, the procedures that must be followed for even a relatively small-scale and discrete area review are substantial, and much the same as those for a new national park. That is the position, and I am not able to change that at present. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that we must take such issues into account, not least because national parks are of great value to the nation. I cannot offer my hon. Friend a remedy in the short term, but I can undertake to give careful thought to the point that he makes.

David Curry: When the Secretary of State considers the national parks, will she bear it in mind that, however important the quiet enjoyment of national parks is for visitors, it is also important that people can earn a living inside the national parks? The foot and mouth disease outbreak showed, among other things, how dependent most people living in national parks are on the tourism industry, which is often not high value, and on agriculture, which is going through a crisis. Will the right hon. Lady bear it in mind that we should look to the parks having an economic purpose, as well as an enjoyment purpose, so that the parks can live in their own right, and not be exclusively playgrounds for people who come in from outside?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, with which the whole House will agree and sympathise. It is precisely to take account of such matters that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life presided over a joint conference with the regional development agencies about a year ago. Some further work is being undertaken on the back of that conference, and we anticipate a further report, probably in June. I entirely take the right hon. Gentleman's point, which is valid and important.

Jackie Lawrence: I, too, congratulate the Government on their attitude to the national parks. Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), will my right hon. Friend look at the system employed in places such the parc d'Armorique in Brittany? Small areas worthy of protection that are not within the park's boundaries can be brought into the park quickly and easily.

Margaret Beckett: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an interesting point, and highlights an example of how others manage these things differently. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), I cannot undertake to make the changes that she suggests at the present time. However, I can certainly undertake to give consideration to the example that she gave, as we will to the proposals that may be put forward by others. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be very happy to discuss the detail of these matters with my hon. Friend.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State knows very well the peak district national park, which attracts more than 20 million visitors a year. Recently, the Government produced a report on the governance of national parks that proposed a reduction in the number of parish representatives involved in running a national park. The proposal may have been well meaning, but does the Secretary of State understand that it would be greatly resisted in the peak district? Will she give very careful consideration as to whether she should go forward with the proposal?

Margaret Beckett: We always keep such matters under very careful consideration. I shall certainly agree to look again at the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. However, I assure him that the Government are trying, as everyone would wish, to get the right balance between the representation of the different interests, who all have the right to a voice.

Sewage Works

Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on the consultation on proposals for the statutory control of odour and other nuisance from sewage works.

Alun Michael: The consultation ended on 28 March and we have received more than 100 responses from local authorities, water companies, professional bodies, local groups and members of the public who have experienced odour problems from sewage treatment works. My officials are collating the responses and I hope to be able to make a further announcement to the House before the summer recess.

Ben Chapman: Constituents of mine in Bromborough, who have long suffered from the problems associated with a landfill site, are now plagued with foul smells emanating from a waste water treatment plant. As my right hon. Friend will know, the loss of a test case by Liverpool city council against United Utilities effectively rules out powers of enforcement against odour nuisance. Can he assure my long-suffering constituents, who are now also threatened with ammonium nitrate being dumped in the vicinity, that his Department will act with all possible speed to find a resolution to the problem?

Alun Michael: Yes, indeed—we want to get a resolution as soon as possible. In many parts of the country, water companies and local authorities, together with local residents, can and do tackle such issues in a pragmatic and speedy way. They do not need to wait for the outcome of the consultation or, indeed, for new legislation in order to behave in a sensible and grown-up manner in trying to deal with a matter that is a nuisance to local constituents. I am not familiar with the case that my hon. Friend mentions, but I will be happy to discuss it with him if he would find that helpful.

Bob Spink: Castle Point suffers from bad odours from sewage plants, but also from Pitsea landfill tip and from the Coryton oil refinery, where there have recently been terrible odours. Will the Government make available specific funds for the excellent Castle Point borough councillors to monitor those odours and to deal with them?

Alun Michael: Those responsibilities lie with the Environment Agency as well as with the local authority, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at what is available to both those bodies at the present time. The consultation deals specifically with the smells that emanate from sewage treatment works, so that is the issue to which I should respond.

Eric Martlew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a serious problem? I must declare an interest, because I live quite close to our local sewage works. The reality is that again we have a problem with United Utilities, which will not spend the money to provide a good sewage facility without any odour. Is it not right that we need legislation, and when will we get it?

Alun Michael: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern if he is in close contact with the problem. Many hon. Members understand it through the experience of their constituents, but he has direct experience. These matters should be capable of being dealt with by a common-sense approach. We undertook the consultation because it was discovered that in some parts of the country—not many, but a significant number—problems were not being solved at a local level, and we want to deal with that as quickly as possible. I would encourage water companies, local authorities and local residents to get together to see whether such matters can be dealt with speedily and sympathetically at a local level.

Bovine TB

Andrew Stunell: What steps she is taking to reduce the incidence of bovine TB.

Elliot Morley: We are working hard to reduce the incidence of bovine TB and are spending £35 million to £40 million a year on a programme of public health protection measures, which include cattle testing, cattle controls and research.
	Last autumn, in response to industry calls, we introduced a package of measures aimed at helping farmers under TB restriction and improving the diagnosis of the disease.

Andrew Stunell: What assurance can the Minister give to the farmers of Hazel Grove, Mellor and Compstall that the insidious spread of bovine TB into Cheshire is being brought under control? Will he end the long delays in on-farm testing that seriously disrupt farmers, and will he intensify the testing of road kill so that the disease can be tracked properly on its spread through the country?

Elliot Morley: On the first point, road traffic accidents are a very important way of examining badger carcases, and we have extended that practice as far as possible to give us more information.
	As regards Cheshire, we are keeping a close eye on the situation in relation to TB spread. I recently met a delegation of farmers from the National Farmers Union to discuss the matter, and they had some thoughtful ideas about controls on cattle movement, which are an important factor.
	We have made good progress in reducing the backlog that built up as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic, and we are trying to ensure a speedy turnaround of testing wherever possible.

David Drew: The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is about to produce a report. I will not predict what the report will say but, from the evidence that we heard, it is fair to say that we still have a scientific challenge to face up to. The different sides of the argument are hard to bring together. Is the Minister aware that the old Select Committee on Agriculture called for a plan B? That should in no way undermine the work of the independent scientific group, but we have to be aware that options may have to be kept open. Would the Minister care to comment on that?

Elliot Morley: We will certainly have to consider a range of options to deal with bovine TB. We have already done that, for example, in the measures that we have put in place for on-farm movements and controls, for the extension of the gamma interferon test, and for research into the epidemiology of the disease. As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a polarisation of opinion on the causes of bovine TB. That is why we have the Krebs study, and that is why we have to approach this issue on the basis of science, to examine all the possible pathways of the disease and to help us to understand how it spreads and is transmitted.

Robert Key: Is the Minister aware that, in south-west Wiltshire, the badger population has for a decade been out of control and out of balance, and that for five years bovine TB has been spreading rapidly? Only this week, my local branch of the National Farmers Union told me that farmers west of Salisbury are desperate about the slow progress of successive Governments in addressing the problem. Will the Minister treat this as a matter of urgency in a rural economy that is already in crisis?

Elliot Morley: The Department regards this as a priority issue, and that is why we have committed so many funds to it and instigated so much scientific research.
	Badger populations have increased in some areas—although not all areas—and the link between badgers and bovine TB is an issue. However, it would be a mistake to focus entirely on that link. We understand and accept that the badger population is a reservoir for disease, but we do not understand the epidemiology or the way in which disease can spread between cattle and badgers. We are not sure that a programme of badger culling is the best use of resources or the most effective way of controlling the disease. The current study will look into that. I would not want to go back to a failed policy that did not stop the spread or increase of the disease.

David Kidney: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this year's figures show a worrying increase in positive bovine TB tests in Staffordshire? Will he take a personal interest in whether the resources available are adequate to deal with the increasing challenge—especially the human resources? Will he confirm that a vaccine is still some way away?

Elliot Morley: There has certainly been an increase in Staffordshire, which was the result of the halt in testing in 2001 and the backlog that came with it. Because of that loss of a year, I would caution people about evaluating the current figures until probably midsummer, when we will have a chance to see what the true spread and increase has been. At the moment, the figures are distorted by the backlog.
	Vaccine development is part of our approach in our research into both badgers and cattle. We have committed just about all the resources that we possibly can to that development but, at the moment, there is no sign of even a near-breakthrough in the development of a suitable vaccine.

John Hayes: The Minister suggests that there is uncertainty, but one thing that is absolutely certain is that the disease is moving much faster than the Government. The profound concerns of farmers have, reportedly, been dismissed by the Minister as being based on folklore. I am sure that he will want to retract that or apologise for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) suggests, the problem is rapidly getting out of control. The disease is spreading and is having a devastating effect. Will the Minister give specific answers to these questions? What steps are being taken and what timetable does he envisage for the development of a vaccine for the eradication of bovine TB in the whole wildlife reservoir population—not just badgers—and also in susceptible farmed animals?

Elliot Morley: Independent scientific groups say that a vaccine is probably 10 years away—although even that is a difficult figure. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman against using phrases such as "out of control" to describe the spread of the disease, because of the current distortion of figures. We need to examine the figures carefully, in a proper analytical way, rather than throwing around such phrases.
	There have been calls from some farming organisations to restart badger culling outside the trial areas, but there is no evidence to suggest that that would have a positive effect on controlling the disease. We need to evaluate all methods of control—testing, movement control, biosecurity and vaccine development—as well as wildlife receptors. It would be a mistake to focus on one particular aspect and to think that by dealing with that we could solve the problem.

Departmental Staff

Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on her plans to reduce the number of senior staff in her Department.

Alun Michael: There are no plans to reduce the number of senior staff in the Department.

Vincent Cable: In view of that slightly surprising reply, will the Minister explain public reports a few weeks ago that the Secretary of State's intention was to be the first member of the Cabinet to set an objective of reducing her Department's bureaucracy by 20 per cent? Why has she subsequently backtracked on that public commitment?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not always believe everything that he reads in the papers. He was clearly determined to ask the question that he had prepared. I have given an answer that dismisses that rather facile approach.

David Taylor: As the Minister said, the intention may be for there to be no such reduction, but the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which I am a member, was distinctly unimpressed by the Department's IT strategy, which envisages a selling-off of the information functions to the private sector. Will that not lead to a loss of experienced, committed and talented individuals that DEFRA, in its present position, cannot possibly afford? Surely, for a Department to sell off core resources, such as information, is like St. Thomas' hospital over the river selling off its surgery department to Sainsbury's butchers.

Alun Michael: I could simply answer "no" and leave it at that. I am afraid that my hon. Friend gives a complete mischaracterisation of what is going on in DEFRA. The Office of Government Commerce review has just been completed, which demonstrated how DEFRA had lifted its game in improving IT. We try to use the best industry standards to provide high quality IT for the future, which is badly needed due to the desperate situation that we inherited. We have every intention of improving IT, as we intend to improve senior management. We have made great strides during the past 18 months and will continue to do so.

James Gray: I am relieved to hear that the Minister has no intention of cutting senior staff in DEFRA by 20 per cent. In my experience, DEFRA civil servants are of the highest quality, so I am glad about that. In that case, however, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about the Select Committee's report? I remind him that it states that DEFRA
	"must undergo . . . structural and cultural change. We have doubts about the abilities of management to oversee such a period of change."
	Will the Minister answer some questions about staffing in that context? First, why are officials of the former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions paid more than their equivalents in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Secondly, how much money does he plan to save for the Treasury as a result of the senior staff review? Will it be more than the £20 million set aside for early retirements? Thirdly, if, as reported in the Financial Times on 13 January, "mandarins" are to undergo psychometric testing to assess their leadership abilities, would it not be reasonable for Ministers to undergo the same tests?

Alun Michael: We are proposing to use those tests on the Opposition, as they need testing more than we do. Again, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers. We are seeking to narrow the gaps between the payment of staff and a lot of progress has been made, but he will appreciate that dealing with that issue is expensive. The purpose of the work that has come from the senior staff review is to lift the quality of staff, particularly senior staff, throughout the Department, and a great deal of progress is being made in that regard. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the high quality of the staff in DEFRA, and they are lifting their game throughout the Department as a result of the leadership that they are being offered.

Fallen Stock

Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on the disposal of fallen stock on farms.

Sandra Gidley: What assessment she has made of the financial impact of the new fallen stock regulations.

David Ruffley: What recent representations she has received regarding the disposal of fallen stock.

Margaret Beckett: I have received a number of representations expressing concerns about introducing the new rules on the disposal of fallen stock. That will clearly have a financial impact on farmers, and the Government continue our dialogue with the industry about introducing a national fallen stock collection and disposal scheme as the best way of addressing those concerns.

Andrew Robathan: I should declare an interest as a farmer, although I own no stock. What has the Secretary of State got against farmers? This measure will mean that the disposal of a dead sheep may cost more the value of a live beast. It is unscientific and illogical. Will the Government now ban the burial of human corpses?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that the measure is unscientific, but the basic regulations were put in place precisely as a result of a report from the EU Scientific Committee. They have been extensively discussed across the EU, and there is general agreement that they are desirable. I reject utterly the suggestion that the Government are in some way attempting to penalise farmers. After all, we are not required to put Government resources behind the scheme that we propose to adopt to try to form the basis of a national scheme, but we have done so.

Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister confirm that, last year, DEFRA was given a report by an independent scientist, showing that biodigestion is a very useful alternative technology in dealing with fallen stock, as it is biosecure and environmentally friendly? What discussions has she had with the European Commission in respect of including that method of disposal among the approved options?

Margaret Beckett: I am aware that the hon. Lady and, indeed, some of her colleagues have raised that issue, and I accept that it does sound interesting. Unfortunately, it is illegal at present, but I am conscious of the interest in the proposals to which she refers, and she will like to know that we have referred them to the scientific authorities in the EU for consideration. However, we cannot pursue that option at present.

David Ruffley: The Secretary of State may wish to be aware that many Suffolk livestock farmers in my constituency believe that information from her Department on the change to the fallen stock regime has been both unhelpful and unclear. In the light of that, has she worked out a mode of enforcement for the new regime, and, if so, will she publish it?

Margaret Beckett: I shall begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. Enforcement is, of course, a matter for local authorities, which enforce regulations of that kind, but I am sorry to hear that individual farmers find the existing guidance less clear than they would wish. We will be writing shortly to all farmers about the new rules and what they need to do to meet them, and we intend to include proposals for a national helpline, as well as arrangements for a voluntary subscription scheme.

Diana Organ: On-farm incineration is a legal alternative for the disposal of fallen stock. When does my right hon. Friend intend to issue the information and guidance for farmers about the use of on-farm incineration?

Margaret Beckett: I believe that some information and guidance is already on the DEFRA website. We are certainly mindful of the fact that, as my hon. Friend will know, there is substantial availability of such incineration capacity, but it has to meet the required standards, and we will work with the industry to ensure that that is the case during the next few months.

Simon Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that many hon. Members feel that on-farm disposal is the most environmentally sound option? Will she say a little more about encouraging biodigestion or on-farm incineration, so that we do not see lorries travelling up and down the country collecting fallen farm stock at huge cost to individual farmers and with environmental costs to the whole country? Will she take this opportunity to rule out any further Government move to end woodland burials or the burial of pets in gardens?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's final point takes us down a slight sidetrack, so I shall return to the main point that he makes. It is valid to say that people will be concerned and that we should be concerned about the biosecurity implications of transport. Equally, as he raised the issue of costs, I say to him that the national collection and disposal industry has come forward with proposals to the Government for what it believes will be a very sound operational scheme. It has identified the fact that it believes that there could be a substantial reduction in costs if such a scheme were fully utilised.

Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend adopt a flexible and proportionate approach to this matter? It should be flexible in the sense that, if agreement cannot be reached but is in the offing, the deadline of 1 May should be extended. It should be proportionate when it comes to hill farmers, because there is a case for sheep carcases being allowed to remain on site for conservation and for wildlife purposes.

Margaret Beckett: I certainly undertake to consider my hon. Friend's point. There has been extensive consultation on this issue for at least a year, and we are anxious to resolve the matter, not least because, if there is scope for agreement to some kind of national scheme, that will make an enormous difference to the way in which we can operate it.

Andrew George: In view of the fact that the regulations need to be implemented on 1 May, this is not just a fiasco that is waiting to happen but a fiasco that is bound to happen. What efforts did the Government make to ensure that the country has the ability to have a sensible derogation for remote rural areas, as is now the case in Scotland? In view of the Secretary of State's answers, will she ensure that farmers have ample opportunity to be consulted? As will inevitably be the case, the implementation and enforcement of the regulations will be delayed if the farming community is properly consulted on the Government's proposals to deal with this issue.

Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I reject the notion that this is a fiasco. We have been consulting the farming community for, as I said, at least a year. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that there will be a problem with implementation and that it will be a fiasco because, in some way, the capacity will not be there to deal with the stock. That is not the case. We are told by the collection and disposal industry that there is ample capacity. It is absolutely possible for the regulations to be implemented on the due date.
	Of course, we want a better, good national scheme that, as the industry advises us, could significantly reduce the costs that farmers are liable for now. That seems to be to everyone's benefit. That is what we shall write to individual farmers about in the very near future.

David Lidington: On 28 February, officials from the Secretary of State's Department told the National Farmers Union that they would issue detailed guidance on on-farm incineration within the following two weeks. When is this guidance going to appear?

Margaret Beckett: Detailed guidance is certainly under preparation and it was my impression that it was going out—

David Lidington: Within two weeks?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says within two weeks, but it was certainly my impression that it is going out in the next few days or week. Although there is detailed guidance about how on-farm incineration can be effected, I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The industry assures us that there is capacity and scope to deal with this problem now.

David Lidington: Does this not show yet again that the incompetence and confusion in the Secretary of State's Department is stopping effective and clear advice from getting to farmers and others who will have to cope with the regulations in about three weeks? We are told that the advice on incineration that was promised a fortnight from the end of February is still being drafted, and we are told that the Department is getting together its letter to send out to all farmers as soon as possible. Can she confirm that article 32 of the animal by-product regulations expressly allows for temporary derogations from those regulations and that the United Kingdom has, in fact, already sought and obtained delays on issues such as the use of used cooking oil in animal feed? Is not the sensible course of action now for the Secretary of State to apply urgently for a derogation from the fallen stock provisions of the regulations so that a proper, effective scheme can be put in place and so that farmers do not face the confusion that they face now and will face from the beginning of May?

Margaret Beckett: Let me repeat that the industry is perfectly aware of the implications. The regulations are not something that has come out of the blue—we have been discussing them with the industry for a full year. There is capacity to deal now with the problem of disposal, and there is no practical need for a derogation. The hon. Gentleman may be losing sight of the key fact that the regulations were introduced in the first place on the basis of scientific advice that the present arrangement was undesirable and should be ended as soon as possible. That is what we are working towards. We very much regret that, unfortunately, it has not proved possible to persuade the representatives of farming organisations to agree to what the collection and disposal industry say is a perfectly practical and viable scheme.
	I remind the House that the industry believes that a national scheme in which people voluntarily participate would operate at substantially lower costs than the present arrangements. It estimates that it would cost about 40 per cent. less for adult cattle and 60 per cent. less for adult sheep. It is on that basis that we shall write to farmers, urging them to tell us whether they would comply with and join a voluntary national scheme.

Endangered Species

Joyce Quin: What recent representations she has received from local and regional wildlife trusts concerning the future of native endangered species.

Margaret Beckett: I regularly receive a number of representations from many sources including the wildlife trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Mammal Society and English Nature.

Joyce Quin: Many of my constituents are concerned about the survival of one of our best-loved species, the red squirrel. While I do not advocate the ruddy duck solution for grey squirrels, will my right hon. Friend tell me what action the Government can take to create controlled zones for the greys so that their remorseless spread is halted? Will she look at ways of ensuring support for cross-regional co-operation in the areas most affected? In England, joint action is necessary in the north-east and Cumbria and, in Scotland, in the adjoining area of Dumfries and Galloway.

Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes an important point—I entirely agree that that kind of co-operation is necessary. She will probably be aware that the Government's emphasis has been to seek to protect the red squirrel by protecting the habitat where it is most likely to survive rather than to interfere in the habitat of the grey squirrel. There is no doubt, sadly, that grey squirrels have a considerable advantage in, for example, broadleaf woodland.
	The Government continue to discuss with the relevant partnership of organisations a range of protective measures to try to enhance the survival capacity of the red squirrel. I share my right hon. Friend's view that red squirrels should be protected—they are charming creatures that we would like to preserve.

Peter Luff: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust for its work in a partnership that is seeking to reopen the old Droitwich canals? The trust's intelligent, pragmatic and sensible approach to possible threats to endangered and rare species along the banks of those waterways has led to a successful grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund and Advantage West Midlands to secure the reopening of those canals. Does she agree that that proves that it is possible to protect endangered and rare species while achieving beneficial change in the countryside?

Margaret Beckett: I am happy to endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is both noticeable and welcome that local partnerships are springing up across the country. The hon. Gentleman is right that the important thing is that, where possible, we act at the point of endangerment, or preferably before, rather than try to retrieve a situation that we have let go beyond repair.

Dorset and East Devon World Heritage Site

Jim Knight: What plans she has to visit the Dorset and east Devon world heritage site.

Alun Michael: I had an excellent visit to the Dorset and east Devon coast world heritage site last year, and discussed its management and development with the local steering committee and with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to a further visit next month as part of the south-west coast path silver jubilee celebrations.

Jim Knight: I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend again to that important natural world heritage site, the only one in England and Wales. Does he agree that it is important that we improve the interpretation of such sites? To that end, what recent discussions has he had directly or through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with the natural history museum to explore with the museum the possibility of investment in a major facility somewhere along the coast, ideally in south Dorset?

Alun Michael: I am aware of those discussions, although I have not been involved directly with them. The Government office for the south-west, in which DEFRA is represented, is working closely with the jurassic coast steering group. I am impressed by the partnership working—the determination and teamwork—in my hon. Friend's constituency and in that part of the country.

Coastal Erosion

Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on her policy on coastal erosion.

Elliot Morley: The policy aim is to reduce the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that reply, which raises a concern about another part of the north Norfolk coast, in addition to the one about which I have already written to him, Happisburgh. I refer to Cley and Salthouse, where over a period of five years the Environment Agency developed a multi-objective scheme along the lines that the Minister described to benefit people, property and conservation. A massive sum was spent on developing the scheme. Last year, it seems that DEFRA suddenly pulled the rug from under the Environment Agency and determined that instead of a multi-objective scheme, only conservation would be covered, and people and property would be dealt with separately. Now we are back to square one, after a massive investment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is turning into a speech. The Minister has probably got the drift.

Elliot Morley: The Cley and Salthouse scheme is well known to me, although the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is not correct. The approach that we take in DEFRA is an integrated approach, whereby environmental factors are considered alongside issues of people and property, as they are in Cley and Salthouse. The delay there arose from the fact that there was one preferred option, which was a clay bank scheme. English Nature raised some reasonable objections to that, relating to the loss of fresh water, the balance between preserving freshwater lagoons and saline lagoons, and whether a scheme could involve the retreat of the shingle bank to a lower profile, which may overtop more but would nevertheless provide adequate levels of defence. It is that detail which is currently under discussion, and that is the reason for the delay.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend is only too aware of the tremendous investment that the Government have made in the stabilisation of the Yorkshire heritage coast. Many people in our community welcome that. Has the additional request for support for that scheme been considered? In the light of his earlier answer, will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to all members of local communities being able to have their say in such schemes, which may sometimes be controversial?

Elliot Morley: I confirm that. With any flood or coastal defence scheme, the Environment Agency or the local authority takes great steps to involve local people. We want to take their views into account. I am familiar with the details of the Scarborough scheme, which involves a major financial commitment on the part of the Government to protect the people of Scarborough. I know that there are issues of cost overrun. Cost overruns are not unique in any kind of major scheme, and we will of course examine the details of the overrun. I should make it clear that we do not automatically provide the additional cost, but if there is a valid reason for the additional expenditure, we will consider it carefully.

Utility Regulators (Price Reviews)

Edward Leigh: What steps (a) Ofgem, (b) Oftel and (c) Ofwat are taking following the 50th Report by the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 2001–02 on Pipes and Wires to simplify the information requirements they place on companies and to change the period over which price reviews are conducted.

Elliot Morley: Neither energy nor telecommunications policy is the responsibility of my Department. The Office of Water Services advises me that it has taken account of the Committee's recommendations in its approach to the next periodic review of water price limits. Ofwat has streamlined the information required from companies into two main submissions and has shortened the length of the period over which the review is conducted from three to two years.

Edward Leigh: I am pleased to hear that reply. The Minister will be aware that regulated water companies complain that much of the information that they give Ofwat is not used. Is he keeping up the pressure on Ofwat to ensure that all the information that it requires from the companies is proper and valid, so that we avoid useless paper chases in Whitehall?

Elliot Morley: I accept that, while regulation is important, as we are dealing with monopoly companies that must be regulated, bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum. As a matter of coincidence, I met Philip Fletcher, the regulator, yesterday in one of our regular meetings to discuss water issues. I know that his work and the information that he collects, some of which we discussed yesterday, are essential in the very complex task of price fixing and taking into account the needs of consumer protection, the environment and companies themselves. I believe that he is taking steps to be as efficient as possible and that the information that is collected is put to good use.

Jon Trickett: Paragraph 4.4 of the report describes the often perverse effects that the regulator's pricing policies can have on water and sewerage companies. As a result, I believe that a problem has been created in my constituency, as Yorkshire Water tells me that an over-prescriptive policy regarding the capital programme is preventing it from replacing inadequate sewerage, which is causing sewage to spill into the houses of local residents. Can my hon. Friend offer me any help in this matter? Will he meet me and one or two others to discuss the problem?

Elliot Morley: I am very happy to meet to discuss individual constituency cases and problems, so I offer my hon. Friend that assurance. I am not all together convinced about the claim to which he refers. I do not know all the details involved, but I can say that price fixing has an element relating to capital investment that is essential to meet the environmental and quality standards that consumers and the public want, many of which are important commitments in legislation and directives. Within that, there is provision for the sort of maintenance that we would expect from any water or sewerage company. I know that sewage flooding is an issue and that it is under discussion in relation to the next price-fixing round, but without knowing all the details, I am a bit sceptical about the suggestion that the capital programme is preventing action on such flooding.

Michael Jack: In the context of the next round of discussions on water charges, one of the factors in which the Minister's Department will be closely involved is helping to quantify the costs of implementing the water framework directive. Will he tell the House what progress he is making to assist water companies in coming to conclusions on the costs of implementing that very important directive?

Elliot Morley: It is an important directive and the biggest ever to have come out of the EU. It provides some major benefits, and we should not forget that. It is true that there are potential costs. Part of the problem is that some of those costs will be met by work that is currently under way, including, for example, on the waste water directive and work that we are implementing in nitrate vulnerable zones relating to diffuse pollution. I think that our figures on cost implications will become more accurate as time progresses. The implementation date is 2015, but I think that we will have a clearer idea of the costs and commitments in about 2005.

Fluvial Strategy (River Trent)

Mark Todd: If she will make a statement on the progress of the fluvial strategy for the River Trent.

Elliot Morley: I understand from the Environment Agency that its study leading to a flood management strategy for the fluvial Trent is proceeding well. The agency currently anticipates that it will be completed in March 2004.

Mark Todd: I thank the Minister for his answer. The communities of Willington, Barrow upon Trent and Shardlow in my constituency are waiting with anxiety for the outcome of the report, which they hope will give guidance about both the true nature of flood risk in their villages and the appropriate defence measures that can be devised. Can he give me some assurance that they will receive some interim guidance on the progress of this very important study?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I can. I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in flood defence and I understand that the test options for flood management should be complete in July 2003. There should be an interim progress report in April 2003, which his constituents will be able to see. The Trent is a very complex river system in which I have to declare an interest, as it forms the western boundary of my constituency. Such a study offers a wide range of benefits for helping us to understand the whole management of water and the best options for protecting communities.

Anne McIntosh: Presumably, the fluvial strategy that the Government are following for the River Trent will not be dissimilar to strategies for the rest of the country. Will the Minister confirm that the fluvial strategy encompasses dredging and that such rivers are dredged as frequently today as they were five or 10 years ago?

Elliot Morley: I can confirm that if the strategy identifies that dredging should be an aspect of river management, it will be done. I caution that dredging often has limited benefits for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, it could have a role to play and if such a role is identified, dredging will form part of the strategy that we will implement.

Radioactive Waste

Joan Ruddock: If she will make a statement on the arrangements for the disposal of low-level solid radioactive waste in the UK.

Michael Meacher: Solid radioactive low-level waste is safely disposed of at Drigg in Cumbria, apart from a small proportion, which is kept in store.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but what is his response to the claims of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee that the United Kingdom's radioactive waste inventory does not take account of low-activity waste, facility decommissioning or clean-up costs, including those for contaminated land, and that any perception that low-activity waste can be dealt with at Drigg is misplaced?

Michael Meacher: We are aware of the issue. Drigg has sufficient capacity until 2050 with regard to current arisings, but my hon. Friend asks about low-activity waste. We are reviewing the best way to deal with waste that is only likely to be contaminated: soil or building rubble from the decommissioning and clean-up of nuclear sites. That will be a significant issue for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I am sure that it will give its view, as will the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which will examine the delivery of our plans for the disposal of low-level waste.

Sheep Identification and Traceability

John Thurso: What discussions she has had with the European Commission about the EU proposal on sheep identification and traceability.

Elliot Morley: Officials have held high-level discussions on these proposals with the European Commission and my noble Friend Lord Whitty contributed to a brief discussion on the proposals during the Agriculture Council on 27 and 28 January.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with the National Farmers Union Scotland that the European Union proposals would effectively close the Scottish sheep industry? Will he do everything possible to bring the highly regarded Scottish flock identification system, which is supported by farmers, vets and the Government, to the attention of the Commission?

Elliot Morley: We have raised our concerns with the Commission about its proposals several times and said that they are inappropriate given the size of our sheep flock and the fact that we have recording procedures, as the hon. Gentleman says. We must seriously address the traceability of sheep. We believe that electronic identification is ultimately the right way forward. Harmonisation rules on that are not yet in place, but the current proposals are not satisfactory. We shall continue to make representations to the Commission on the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Andrew Dismore.

Silkstream Flood Defence Scheme

Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on progress with the Silkstream flood defence scheme.

Elliot Morley: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has approved the Environment Agency's proposed Silkstream flood defence scheme, subject to satisfactory resolution of negotiations with landowners. I understand that the agency is undertaking those negotiations and has commenced detailed design, with a view to starting construction in late summer 2004.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but can he do anything to speed up the scheme? It is already a year behind schedule, and summer 2004 is six months later than the date that was given in the previous answer at the beginning of the year. Will he ascertain whether anything can be done to make some progress on the scheme, which is long overdue and badly needed by my constituents?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend has raised the issue for some time and I sympathise with his frustration about the progress that has been made. I understand that negotiations with landowners constitute one of the problems because land needs to be acquired. However, I believe that they are concluding and I hope that progress will be made quickly.

Iraq (Military Operations)

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about military action in Iraq.
	We are now two weeks into the campaign. The coalition continues to make remarkable progress, following the main outlines of our military plan. Since my last statement on 26 March, coalition forces have established a presence in northern Iraq and are moving ever closer to Baghdad. Another important phase has been reached as the first troops engage Saddam Hussein's republican guard divisions on the approaches to the city.
	At the same time, British forces are consolidating their position in the area in and around Basra. I do want to repeat the warning that I gave in my first statement to the House some two weeks ago: do not underestimate the task that still faces our forces or the length of time that it may take to complete. We are still very much in the second phase of steady progress that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out.
	On behalf of the Government, I want to extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who have lost their lives in recent days. I would also like to mention those who have been injured, some seriously, since the start of military operations, either in combat or in the usual course of their duties: 39 United Kingdom battle casualties are currently being treated in theatre and 35 have been evacuated. I know that the House will join me in sending our very best wishes for their speedy recovery.
	In the conflict, we have been accused by commentators of underestimating the resistance of the Iraqi regime. We always knew that the regime would fight, but, as democratic states that observe the rule of law, we have been shocked by the extent of the Iraqi regime's capacity for brutality and killing its own people.
	Every aspect of what we do is rightly and understandably held up for public scrutiny. In contrast, Saddam Hussein's murderous thugs go about their brutal work out of sight of the media. Some have been surprised by the caution with which the Iraqi people have greeted coalition forces, but that should not be surprising. The regime has deployed every horror in maintaining its stranglehold on power—torture, rape and execution.
	In recent days, our forces on the ground around Basra have been appalled by the actions of the regime's thugs as they struggle to maintain their grip on the city. On 25 March, there were disturbances in Basra that irregular regime forces suppressed with mortar fire against their own people. On 28 March, when between 1,000 and 2,000 people were preparing to leave Basra, regime militia opened fire with heavy machine gun and mortar fire. Since then, irregulars have routinely been firing on civilians in the south-east of Basra. That is the sort of brutal suppression that has been going on in Iraq for very many years.
	Despite its protestations to the contrary, the Iraqi regime shows no greater respect for the country's cultural wealth than for its people. The coalition is taking every precaution to avoid damage to the holy sites in Najaf and Karbala. By contrast, we know that Saddam Hussein has plans to damage the sites and blame the coalition. Indeed, his forces have used the site at Najaf as a defensive position, firing on United States forces, who commendably did not return fire.
	The steady advance of the coalition continues. Our strategic grip on Iraq is tightening. In the south, British forces continue to operate in the al-Faw peninsula, the southern oilfields and the Basra area. The 7th Armoured Brigade is preventing Iraqi forces in Basra from hindering the main advance, while establishing corridors for the safe movement of civilians and humanitarian aid.
	We have been striking key regime targets in the area. Those operations have included successful attacks from the air on the Ba'ath party headquarters in Basra, and by 7th Armoured Brigade on the intelligence and militia headquarters in Basra and the local state security organisation headquarters in Az Zubayr in the south of Basra.
	In the area of Abu Al Khasib, in the south-east outskirts of Basra, 3 Commando Brigade have engaged substantial Iraqi forces, capturing significant numbers of enemy forces, including senior Iraqi officers. This daring raid resulted in the death of one Royal Marine. There were, in addition, a number of casualties. On the night of 31 March, 16 Air Assault Brigade, with artillery and air support, engaged Iraqi forces, destroying an estimated 17 tanks and five artillery pieces, as well as other Iraqi vehicles and infantry positions. We are now focused on building the confidence of the local people. We will continue to patrol aggressively, striking hard at the regime and its militias. Key suburbs of Basra have now been taken. We will go further into the city at a time of our own choosing.
	Further north, elements of the United States army's Fifth Corps have now passed through Karbala and are moving towards Baghdad. US forces have been engaging with the Medina and Baghdad republican guard divisions, and have secured crossings over the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The lead elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division are now on the outskirts of Baghdad. More than 9,000 Iraqi prisoners of war have been taken by coalition forces. Royal Air Force aircraft have contributed to the close air support of these forces. They have also attacked Iraqi forces in the field, and have continued to degrade the regime's command and control facilities, and the combat capability of the security forces that support it.
	Coalition forces have taken the utmost care over the targeting of the air campaign. Every effort has been made to minimise the risk of any civilian casualties or damage to the civilian infrastructure. The House will be aware of the explosions in market districts of Baghdad on 26 and 28 March, and of reports of significant numbers of fatalities and injuries. Neither of the marketplaces was targeted by the coalition, and we continue to investigate how these tragic events might have occurred. We have long been familiar with the false claims of civilian casualties made by Saddam's regime, and it would be foolish to accept these claims at face value without proper investigation. What we do know, however, is that the air defence commander in Baghdad has been replaced, partly because of concerns that Iraqi surface-to-air missiles had been malfunctioning, failing to hit their targets and falling back on Baghdad.
	Offensive operations are, however, only part of the picture. The expertise and flexibility of our forces are essential to the battle to win the confidence of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have been terrified. More than half the population of Iraq have only known life under Saddam Hussein and his apparatus of fear. The older generation have an appreciation of his cruelty that is often borne out by bitter personal experience. That is why it is so important that, in a number of areas in which UK forces are operating, there is a growing sense of return to normal life. Some people are going back to work.
	The United Nations has now declared Umm Qasr a permissive environment, allowing UN agencies to begin their work there. Essential services such as water and electricity are being restored and even improved, in part owing to the skill of the Royal Engineers with the help of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Umm Qasr water treatment plant, which can treat up to 3 million litres a day, is now operational. In addition, the water pipeline constructed by UK forces from Kuwait to Umm Qasr is complete, delivering up to 2 million litres of drinking water daily—enough for 160,000 people a day—and providing vital temporary relief.
	Schools and markets are being reopened, and the 7th Armoured Brigade has removed Ba'ath party thugs from the Az Zubayr medical centre—where treatment was previously available only to those close to the regime—to enable access for ordinary Iraqis. Humanitarian aid is being distributed. The security situation in a growing number of areas is such that troops are patrolling on foot rather than in armoured cars, and have in some cases been able to exchange their combat helmets for berets.
	The United Kingdom's armed forces are putting the full range of their expertise and experience to use, with striking effect. The Royal Marines have disabled the last remnants of the Iraqi navy, and the port of Umm Qasr is under coalition control and open to shipping. Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels continue operations to expand the navigable width of the Khawr Abd Allah channel. They have discovered 105 mines so far—11 laid in the water, and a total of 94 intercepted on Iraqi tugs and patrol boats.
	These operations are crucial to the humanitarian operation, bringing vital supplies to the Iraqi people. On 28 March, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Sir Galahad unloaded its humanitarian cargo of around 300 tonnes of water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. Water and perishable goods have already been distributed in the Umm Qasr area; other supplies are being stored until such time as they are required. Two Australian ships, each loaded with some 50,000 tonnes of grain, are expected in Umm Qasr shortly.
	The United Nations oil-for-food programme was re-established by Security Council resolution 1472 on 28 March. That is an important milestone for the people of Iraq, but it will take time to take effect. Therefore, 1 (UK) Division has authority to spend up to £30 million for special humanitarian purposes within the first month and a further £10 million is available for "quick impact" projects such as restoring electricity and water supplies.
	After two weeks of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition continues to make progress. Every day, we are further weakening Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq and moving another day closer to the end of his appalling regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
	We are engaged in an important and determined effort to convince the Iraqi people of our commitment to them, their political security and their economic welfare. Above all, we are committed to seeing through what we have begun—removing the regime that has terrified the Iraqi people and impoverished the nation for two decades. That will take time, but we have made an excellent start. There is still more to achieve, and our servicemen and servicewomen will continue to brave difficulties and dangers in the process. I know that the House will join me in wishing them well.

Bernard Jenkin: I certainly join the Secretary of State, as I am sure the whole House does, in wishing our armed forces well. May I also join him in paying tribute to those who have given their lives while carrying out their duties in Iraq? Although it has to be said that we have suffered remarkably few casualties, every loss is keenly felt and we extend our deepest sympathies to their families and loved ones.
	I also join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the work of the British armed forces, who have shown and are showing not only that they can fight, but that they care and that they can feed, bring water to and tend the wounds of the Iraqi people. Will he endorse the view that there is now clear evidence that we can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? We can continue to take great pride in our armed forces' courage and achievements—and will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the unsung heroes, our special forces?
	Can the Secretary of State say more about his expectations for Basra? May I endorse his view that we must let our commanders take Basra in their own time, which may yet take many days if we are to keep civilian and our own casualties to the absolute minimum and to build the confidence of the Iraqi people in our good intentions? As that is likely to take longer, may I again press him on the issue of reinforcements—that is, additional troops who would allow existing troops to take rest periods before continuing their duties?
	The troops in Iraq have endured 15 days of continuous operations, day and night, and the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that
	"contingency plans are indeed in place".
	Please will the Secretary of State set out what those contingency plans are for reinforcement, not replacement, troops? What units are warned to deploy, even if, in the event, it emerges that they are not needed?
	It is welcome that the Fire Brigades Union called off its recent threatened strikes, but the threat of strikes later this month remains. Surely if there is a choice between allowing strikes to go ahead or having reinforcements available, the law should be brought to bear on the FBU's threats, as we have been advocating for some time.
	May I also pay tribute to United States forces, who have fought many stiff and successful battles? Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating US forces who are showing such a clear understanding and sensitivity for the Shi'ite religious sites, mentioned in his statement, at Najaf and Karbala? He has confirmed that US forces have refused to return fire at Iraqi forces who have deliberately held themselves up there.
	Can the Secretary of State also explain what expectations he has for Baghdad? US forces are still only fighting outside Baghdad. Does he agree that speculation in the press on the early fall of Baghdad is simply not realistic?
	Turning to the discussions on post-conflict Iraq, which will continue to depend on the role played by our armed forces, will the Secretary of State clarify how the Government are approaching the key issues? Everyone agrees with the goal that the Prime Minister set out yesterday that Iraq
	"should be run by Iraqi people on the basis of a broadly representative Government"—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 909–11.]
	But what will happen between the end of the conflict and the establishment of such an Iraqi Government?
	Clearly coalition forces will have de facto responsibility for overall security. What role do the Government propose for the United Nations? Will the initial transitional Government be led by the United States, and what will be the British involvement in that Government? Will there be a role for NATO, where Colin Powell is at this minute meeting representatives of European Governments?
	What is the Secretary of State's opinion of the view expressed on Radio 4 this morning by the British major-general Albert Whitley, who I understand may be given a role in an initial transitional administration? Such an administration may have to last for many months. Is not a vital component the early involvement of the Iraqis themselves? Will the Government endorse the call made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a conference of Iraqi leaders and anti-Saddam dissidents, including the Kurds—preferably in coalition-occupied Iraq—as soon as possible, to demonstrate the coalition's commitment to the Iraqi people at all stages of this process and to show that we come to enfranchise them, not to rule them?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about our armed forces and indeed those of the United States—all who are engaged in difficult and sometimes very dangerous military operations.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to continue to win hearts and minds. I think the evidence I gave the House of what is occurring in southern Iraq is an indication of that, but, as I said, we must not underestimate the fear imposed on the people of Iraq over decades of control by a ruthless, brutal regime. It will take time to win those people's confidence, and our commitment to them above all else is crucial. I say that without qualification.
	Coalition forces continue to tighten their grip on Basra. As I said, we will continue to patrol aggressively and continue to strike at the remaining elements of the regime who are in the city and still intimidating the local population. I repeat that we have no need of additional forces; there will be replacements as and when we need them. The need to replace British forces in the front line who are performing high-intensity tasks is not an issue, as commanding officers do that routinely. It is part of the way in which our forces are organised, to ensure that those in the front line are not allowed to become overtired owing to the operations in which they are engaged.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we should not allow speculation about the timetable for the fall of Baghdad. As we have seen around Basra, it is much more sensible and appropriate for us to proceed at our own pace rather than that suggested by those who commentate on these events, not just to protect the lives of the civilian population but to have proper regard to the safety and security of our own forces.
	I entirely agree that our ambition—our early ambition—for the post-conflict period is for Iraq to be run by the Iraqi people. Certainly coalition forces will be responsible for providing security in the period immediately after the end of any conflict, but I hope that period—once the regime has been removed—can be as short as possible, consistent, obviously, with the needs of security on the ground. I do not accept that it helps at this stage to make suggestions about the length of any transitional administration. We want an early involvement of the Iraqi people, and we want to work towards a representative Government as we have in Afghanistan.

Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement, and echo his comments, and those of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), about the British armed forces. The thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of those who have lost their lives, the missing, the injured and, of course, those who are still fighting. I echo particularly what the Secretary of State says about the defence of religious sites in Iraq, which is vitally important.
	May I ask about the humanitarian efforts? I welcome the sight of British troops in berets and, indeed, Tam o' Shanters, patrolling the streets of Umm Qasr.
	Are any more UK ships being loaded with humanitarian aid to take into Umm Qasr and will some of the problems affecting the distribution of that aid be dealt with?
	This operation was initially intended to find, secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made in that regard?
	The Secretary of State mentioned that some 9,000 prisoners of war have been taken. Is it not imperative to winning the battles for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq that all prisoners of war are treated under the terms of the Geneva convention? Will he assure the House that that is being done and that all Iraqi forces will be treated in the same way? Will he explain what is happening about the transfer of prisoners from US to UK control, which I understand is now happening?
	The Secretary of State will be aware of reports this morning that British forces have used cluster bombs in Iraq. Does he not agree that the unintended consequences of using such weapons can have a terrible impact on the civilian population and, indeed, on our own forces? I am sure that we all remember the two Gurkhas who tragically lost their lives in Kosovo while clearing up unexploded bomblets. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if such bombs are used, he will notify the aid agencies and others in the area of their presence and give a commitment that UK forces will be involved in clearing unexploded ordnance?
	Finally, I welcome what the Prime Minister said this week about parcels for our troops. Will the Secretary of State outline in more detail when this programme will begin? The well-being and security of servicemen and women in the area must be our first priority.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations. The humanitarian effort will certainly continue. The crucial contribution made by British forces is the widening of the channel and the extension of the berthing facilities in Umm Qasr, which will continue. As I said, we anticipate that further ships will contribute to that effort.
	As yet, we have not made significant finds of weapons of mass destruction, but as I have told the House before, we have made discoveries of extensive protective clothing issued to Iraqi forces, which we believe could have been issued only in preparation for their own use of chemical weapons. No coalition forces have such weapons and we would certainly never use them.
	I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asked for about the observance of the Geneva convention in respect of prisoners of war. In practice, several prisoners of war have been transferred from US to UK control, particularly when the prisoners were taken in the course of the US forces' rapid progress north. Given the UK's consolidation in the south, it is sensible for the UK to be responsible for such prisoners.
	I can confirm that British forces have used cluster bombs, which, as I have told the House before, are the most suitable weapons for dealing with wide-area targets. If we did not use such weapons on appropriate occasions, we would put our own and coalition forces at greater risk. I have had the privilege on several occasions of seeing British explosive ordnance disposal forces clearing up unexploded ordnance—not just our own, but often the devices left behind by other countries. I pay tribute to their courage and to the tremendous work that they carry out, often in difficult circumstances.
	I am delighted that the Prime Minister announced the free parcel service. As he said, it should begin as soon as the operational situation in the Gulf allows—effectively when a degree of stability is achieved—but I emphasise that service personnel and their families can already send air letters and e-mails to each other free of charge, and we should not underestimate the importance of that effective means of communication.

Kevin Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is easy to criticise and attribute blame from cosy TV studios equipped with computer graphics that do not fight back, it is not so simple for our brave men and women in Iraq who have to face split-second life-and-death decisions about whether they are facing a civilian or a member of the Iraqi militia dressed as a civilian? Do our military top brass not have better things to do than answer well rehearsed questions from journalists who seem to have first-class honours degrees in hindsight, and most of whom would probably run a mile if a 40-watt bulb popped next to them?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend tempts me. It is fair to say that we have had some indications from commanding officers that some embedded journalists—who are doing a tremendous job of communicating the details of what is taking place in Iraq back to the UK and elsewhere—have perhaps occasionally exaggerated the nature of the conflict, particularly if they are unused to gunfire, when they have reported back to the UK. Commanding officers who have read reports have sometimes been surprised to discover that they were in heavy conflict when they thought that a few bullets were whizzing overhead.
	My hon. Friend's presence, and my knowledge that his son is in the Gulf, reminds me that we should pay tribute to our reservists, who are doing an absolutely tremendous job not only in the Gulf, but back in the United Kingdom filling in for those who have gone to serve in the theatre. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to praise not only his son, but many others who are serving their country in a way that is quite different from their ordinary everyday lives. I am particularly grateful to our reservists.

Edward Leigh: In reply to the report on friendly fire, issued by the Public Accounts Committee, the Government said:
	"Recommendations will be made by April 2003"—
	that is, now—
	"on how the UK armed forces could most effectively collect and analyse information about incidents of misidentification in order to bring about overall improvements to combat ID."
	What is the status of those recommendations: are they ready, are they implemented, and will they be published?

Geoff Hoon: As I indicated to the Committee, considerable work was done in preparation for this conflict and many technological improvements were made to our equipment. However, as tragic incidents have recently demonstrated, there is no simple technological solution to the problem of friendly fire. Sadly, in the heat of conflict, mistakes are made. Every incident will be thoroughly investigated and we will continue to learn lessons, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not hold me to a particular date at this stage.

Harry Cohen: May I say, first, that I believe that the use of cluster bombs is deplorable? Will the Secretary of State provide some clarification of the deaths of the two soldiers to which the Prime Minister referred last weekend in the United States? Were they executed, or were they, as the Army chiefs said, victims of war dying in action? Was it a war crime by Iraqi officialdom, or a failure of intelligence reporting to the Prime Minister, perhaps even a failure of spin? Some clarification would be welcome.

Geoff Hoon: No doubt right hon. and hon. Members will raise the issue of cluster bombs, but my hon. Friend really has to face up to the facts. Certainly there are risks with cluster bombs, as there are risks of all munitions failing. The percentage failure rate is small, but it leaves a continuing problem, which I accept and recognise. That is why the explosive ordnance disposal people bravely risk their lives to clear up such problems. Balanced against that, my hon. Friend must face the issue of whether he would allow coalition forces to be put at risk because we are not prepared to use that particular capability. Without cluster bombs, we would have to use far larger ordnance to deal with the same problem. We would have to use far larger weapons to deal with deployed tanks, for example, which is the sort of target against which cluster bombs are used. I do not think that there is a simple answer to this issue. As I have indicated to the House on many previous occasions, we use the weapon only when it is absolutely justified, but if it is, it is because it will make the battlefield safer for our armed forces—and I am not prepared to compromise on that.
	As to the two soldiers, as the Prime Minister indicated, there is intelligence information about the cause of death, but I do not think it helps at this stage to go into it in any greater detail. There will certainly be a further investigation into the background, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the relatives are properly communicated with in respect of the circumstances, and that we have clear evidence of war crimes having been committed by Iraqi forces.

Adrian Flook: A number of soldiers facing combat in Iraq will suffer from combat stress, post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems, sometimes for many years after they have left the forces. What planning and co-ordination is the Secretary of State and his Department pursuing with the NHS and strategic health authorities to provide the treatment that those mentally scarred soldiers may well deserve?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. We have spent a great deal of time identifying and dealing with the problem. For the forces that we have deployed, there are measures in place that will allow the symptoms of combat stress to be identified at an early stage. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is medically qualified and has a particular interest in this area. He has followed through the arrangements that have been made and which are available, and will continue to do so.

Clive Betts: I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the post-conflict situation in Iraq. At the very least, there seems to be some difference of emphasis in what is coming from the State Department and the Pentagon about precisely what should happen in Iraq, post-conflict. Some of us are worried that the more extreme elements in the Pentagon are almost talking about a military colony being run from the US after the conflict is over. Will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Pentagon, and whether he has had any success in tempering some of the more extreme views that have been expressed?

Geoff Hoon: Again, I would not always believe what I read in the Washington Post any more than I would always believe what I read in all of our admirable daily newspapers. I know full well that the ambition of my US counterpart is exactly the same as mine—to see Iraq restored to its own people, and British forces removed from Iraq as soon as possible.

Patrick Mercer: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about our brave dead and wounded, to whom I pay tribute? Given the rumours and reports that between 1,000 and 4,000 jihadists are flowing into the region, will the Secretary of State say how seriously the threat is being taken? Without going into details, will he say what techniques or practices will be used to protect our forces against them?

Geoff Hoon: There is a threat. It is something that we are extremely concerned about, not least because of the appalling incident when an apparent suicide bomber killed four US marines. As I indicated to the House—I believe it was on Monday— that has an impact not only on the safety and security of coalition forces, but on how they are able to deal with the local population. That emphasises once again how impressive is the behaviour of British forces in the south. They are trying to deal with the Iraqi population as they would deal with the British population. We must have regard to the risks involved when people are prepared to kill themselves in some fanatical attack on coalition forces, but efforts are being made to address the issue. It is a serious concern, and we will continue to deal with it.

Rosemary McKenna: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming the statement on the free postage for our armed forces? The issue has been raised with me on many occasions in my constituency. We all understand that it will take time to work out the details, but can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that all post offices will be given accurate information about the details of the scheme? One problem at the moment is that different post offices react in different ways.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The British Forces Post Office will co-ordinate the new scheme. Full details of the free packet service for families will be published in due course. However, my hon. Friend's question at least gives me an opportunity to urge right hon. and hon. Members to discourage their constituents, if they can, from seeking to use the new scheme before the details have been published. I know that there is a great deal of concern in the country, and that people want to help. We will have the details published as soon as we possibly can but, in the meantime, it would be helpful if right hon. and hon. Members could at least use their persuasive powers to ask people to delay sending packages just yet.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for supplying me with an advance copy of his statement, and I associate myself, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru entirely with the thoughts that have been expressed about our service personnel and their families back home. As has been mentioned, the battle for hearts and minds is crucial for the peaceful future of Iraq. The Secretary of State will be aware of the major speculation in Washington today about post-conflict Iraq, the security situation there, Iraqi self-government and the management of oil resources. Why will the Government not announce their full support for a lead UN role, post-conflict, before Iraqi self-government is established? Is it perhaps because the US Administration are already handing out the jobs?

Geoff Hoon: Again, there is a good deal of speculation in US newspapers, as there is in UK newspapers. What is important is that we put in place the elements necessary to allow the Iraqi people to run their country. As I indicated in my statement, the first element has been decided at the UN—the re-establishment of the oil-for-food programme. Once the oil begins to flow, it will provide a considerable source of revenue that can be spent in Iraq properly, rather than on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, as was the case in the past. We also want there to be UN support for the situation in Iraq. The UN can support the rebuilding of a country in a variety of ways, and the model that we set out in Afghanistan was broadly welcomed by everyone involved. It seems to be working extremely well, and there is no reason why that process could not be the appropriate one.

Helen Jackson: There were graphic television images yesterday of the impact of a cluster bomb that was dropped, I believe, on the town of Hillah, south of Baghdad. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that cluster bombs will not be dropped on the streets and urban areas of Basra, especially as I applaud the Government's intention to win the hearts and minds of the local population?

Geoff Hoon: I also saw some graphic images, but I hope that my hon. Friend and others will suspend their belief—certainly when those graphic images are the product of Iraqi minders taking television crews to particular locations. No television crew in areas controlled by the Iraqi regime has freedom of movement. It is very important to recognise that, and to accept that crews will be taken to places where the Iraqi regime wants them to go. However, I do not doubt that there are occasions when cluster bombs and other munitions can cause civilian casualties. I regret those casualties: they are a consequence of conflict, and we try to minimise them, if at all possible. I can certainly tell the House that so far it has not been necessary to use cluster bombs in and around Basra.

Jonathan Sayeed: Whatever our views were before the conflict, with a war under way it is essential for the morale of our troops that they understand that they have our unstinting support and concern for their welfare. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the coalition will not allow its actions to be determined by media pressure for quick results; and that, if taking longer means saving coalition and Iraqi lives, a few adverse headlines are a price well worth paying?

Geoff Hoon: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the point that I set out in my first statement about military operations two weeks ago, when I warned that this would not necessarily be a rapid conflict. I said that it would take time and that there would be risks and dangers. That remains as much the case today, as coalition forces advance near Baghdad, as it did two weeks ago.

Shaun Woodward: May I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces for getting humanitarian aid as quickly as possible into Umm Qasr? However, it might be worth reminding ourselves that the humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq was in play long before intervention began. There were 500,000 children dying of malnutrition and a quarter of the country was without clean water. None the less, will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the role that military personnel are playing now in Basra to supply food, water and medicines? Will it remain a priority of the coalition forces to bring humanitarian aid to a country that has long been without it?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to emphasise the catastrophe caused to the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein's regime. That is one of the reasons why I said that the ambition of our Royal Engineers in working with excellent international organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross is not simply to provide the same facilities as were available to the Iraqi people before, but to improve on them—to ensure that there is a regular, reliable supply of pure water and that people are properly fed, clothed and housed. Those are not unreasonable ambitions for a country of the size and wealth of Iraq. It is certainly how Iraq should be, and we want to play a part in allowing the Iraqi people to develop their own country for themselves.

Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the very close links that existed before the conflict between elements of the Shi'as in southern Iraq and elements of the Iranian regime. What assessment has been made of the threat from that quarter, and what impact is that likely to have on British troops in the south of the country, who will clearly be affected?

Geoff Hoon: I do not believe that there is such a threat. We have been in close contact with the Iranian Government, and we have sought to allay any concerns about the potential for misunderstanding. That is a very good example—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it—of the importance of the religious sites. The four key sites of the Shi'a are in Iraq. They are as important to the Iranian people as they are to the Shi'as in Iraq, and it is vital that they be protected and preserved.

Alice Mahon: I offer my concern and sympathies to the relatives of all the military who have been lost and of all the civilians who have been killed. May I, however, draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the high number of children who are being killed? We can look to International Red Cross reports and other sources on that, not to Iraqi thugs. The two market bombings killed a high number of children. If he wants information on the second bombing, he can go to yesterday's edition of The Independent, which gives the number of the missile.
	Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the hospital report in Basra, where 250 have been reported killed and 1,000 injured by allied bombing, many of them children? Women and children were killed at the US checkpoint. Of the 11 dead at Hillah, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), nine were children. That has been verified by independent sources. Will we be keeping a toll of the number of civilians and children killed; and if we do get into urban warfare, have any projections been made concerning the number of civilians that might be killed?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the risks of conflict, particularly to children, and I assure her that every effort is made to avoid those risks as much as we can. I would caution her, though, against relying on particular accounts—

Alice Mahon: It was the International Red Cross.

Geoff Hoon: If she will give me the opportunity, I will explain why I would caution her. First, if she read carefully the original account of the first marketplace bomb set out in graphic detail in The Independent newspaper, as I am sure she did, she will have seen that the source of the information suggesting that it was the responsibility of coalition forces was someone the journalist spoke to in the marketplace. That was the source of the allegation that it was a coalition responsibility.
	As regards yesterday's piece, which I also read with some care, the allegation is that because a piece of a cruise missile was handed to the journalist, that somehow proved that what took place was caused by coalition forces. I have to tell my hon. Friend that a considerable number of cruise missiles have been targeted at Baghdad in the past two weeks. I can also tell her that we have very clear evidence that immediately after these two explosions representatives of the regime were clearing up in and around the marketplace. Why they should be doing that, other than perhaps to disguise their own responsibility, is an interesting question. What is important about this is that all of us should look very sceptically at such reports and rely only on known and agreed facts.

Sue Doughty: In welcoming the humanitarian aid that is now going into Iraq, is the Secretary of State aware of yesterday's report by UNICEF expressing concern that aid is delivered in packets of the same yellow colour as the bombs that are being dropped? There is a risk that children may come across unexploded bombs and think that they have found humanitarian aid. There was a similar problem in Afghanistan, where the colour of the packaging was changed from yellow to blue. Will changes be made in this case?

Geoff Hoon: I shall certainly look into that: it seems a very sensible suggestion.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) about cluster bombs. He may have seen reports in the press regarding casualties in the Hillah hospital. Those reports have been endorsed by Human Rights Watch, which suggests that cluster bombs were dropped on residential areas. The indication therefore is that the battle for Baghdad may well cause very high casualty rates among civilians. Would he agree that the point at which Baghdad is surrounded should be the point at which we invite the United Nations to broker a peace deal?

Geoff Hoon: I set out clearly in relation to Basra, and by analogy in relation to Baghdad, that we are not going to be driven into action as a result of commentators or of pressure from outside. We will take our time and do the job properly, minimising civilian casualties, but also having proper regard to the safety and security of our forces. What I cannot understand about my hon. Friend's comments, though, is the idea that he could contemplate, after so much determined effort, the continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime. If he had accompanied his observation by saying that an absolute precondition was the removal of Saddam Hussein, I might have more sympathy with it.

Martin Smyth: My party, too, sympathises with the losses of our troops and the civilian casualties. We sympathise with the troops who have been involved in some of those civilian casualties, because we have seen it happen that people are not prepared to fight as soldiers, but are prepared to fight as terrorists.
	May I ask for confirmation that the money for humanitarian aid to which the Secretary of State referred has been earmarked by the Ministry of Defence for that purpose and is distinct from the humanitarian aid that will be going through the Department for International Development?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his observations about terrorism. He and his colleagues have had often bitter personal experience in representing areas that have been plagued by terrorism for far too long. There is little doubt that much of the expertise of British soldiers, which I rightly praise, derives from their experience of dealing with difficult situations in the north of Ireland.
	As far as aid is concerned, we have found in previous situations of this kind that very early projects are necessary. I gave the examples of reconnecting electricity and ensuring that a pure water supply is immediately available. The people who are best able to achieve that in the early days after a conflict are British soldiers, who do the job extremely well with the range of skills that they have within their ranks. The money that I identified is money from the Government—it is not earmarked as being specifically from the Ministry of Defence, but is money that the Government are making available for the kinds of early projects that are so important in allowing people to get on with their ordinary lives after a conflict.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to inform the House of the nature of the discussions between Secretary of State Powell and the Turkish Government about northern Iraq, and is he in a position to reassure the Kurds about Turkey's intentions?

Geoff Hoon: As I indicated to the House previously, a number of very clear messages have been sent to Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally and we have regular conversations with it. Secretary Powell's visit to Turkey is part of that continuing process. I do not underestimate the political sensitivities in the north of Iraq, and we have regular regard to that both in discussions with Turkey and in discussions with representatives of the Kurdish community there.

Tony Baldry: Last week in New York, when members of the Select Committee on International Development met senior officers of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, we were slightly surprised by their surprise that they were going to have to move considerable volumes of humanitarian food and non-food aid over lines into disputed territory. What prospect does the Secretary of State think that coalition forces have of being able to assist with such movements, especially if there is to be, for example, a long siege in areas such as Baghdad?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult issue. No one would pretend that our forces can easily move food into areas that the hon. Gentleman calls "disputed" but that are, in many cases, fairly bitterly fought over. I would have to be convinced that such arrangements could be carried through safely by our forces and, in addition, that the food aid would reach the people for whom it was intended. Unless and until the regime loosens its control over places such as Basra, it will be very difficult to satisfy either of those conditions.

Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State provide a written statement, or ask the Secretary of State for International Development to do so, to address the questions that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has raised? The Secretary of State will be aware that 16 million Iraqi people—60 per cent. of the population—were wholly dependent on oil-for-food arrangements before the conflict began. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a statement on how quickly the volume of food aid under the new oil-for-food arrangements will match the arrangements that were in place before the war. I appreciate the logistical problems that British and American troops will face, but we would like to have the best estimate of how quickly the volumes of food aid will increase.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which we will continue to look at. The safety, stability and security of the areas in which food aid is delivered are important and must be a prerequisite. I have spoken about the UN's assessment of the situation in Umm Qasr. We want more and more areas of Iraq to be liberated, made safe and made secure so that international organisations can deliver food and other assistance.
	Assessments that I have seen do not suggest that—at present, at any rate—there is an acute shortage of food in southern Iraq. There have been concerns about the lack of pure water supplies, which is why we are addressing that issue so swiftly. However, I am not being told that there is an immediate food crisis.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those serving from RAF Leeming, RAF Linton-on-Ouse, Allenbrooke barracks and Dishforth airfield? They number some 445. Obviously, this is a very anxious time for the families and friends who are left behind. Especially worrying are the graphic pictures that are reaching them in what is virtually 24-hour coverage—particularly pictures from the front line. That must be having an impact on people's performance. This is not a television programme or a film; this is for real. Can the Government impose some parameters, or some limited controls, on media coverage in these circumstances?

Geoff Hoon: I join the hon. Lady in her tribute, not only to those who are serving but to the families who wait behind—often understandably anxious. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of families, as have other members of the Government and members of the royal family. A determined effort has been made to recognise the contributions that families make at this especially difficult time. That is why we have appealed to the broadcasters to display sensitivity and understanding in the images that they broadcast. I know that families are anxious and I know that the broadcasters do recognise their responsibility in this respect.

Ann Clwyd: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the accounts of the journalists who have just been released from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and their horrific accounts of other people in that prison who are subjected to daily beatings and torture? Will he give a clear message to the regime about prisoners of war? We do not expect our prisoners of war, under the Geneva conventions, to be treated in that way. Will he assure the families of those prisoners of war that he will make representations again on this point?

Geoff Hoon: I have read those accounts and they are truly appalling. I have read other equally disturbing accounts of the mistreatment of prisoners. Those accounts lead me to take the clear view that war crimes have been committed by elements of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Christopher Chope: Does the Secretary of State agree that false claims about civilian casualties have been given credence by the conduct of BBC correspondents in Baghdad? Is it not an insult to BBC licence-fee payers that they are, in effect, being forced to subsidise Saddam's propaganda machine? If CNN and al-Jazeera are withdrawing their correspondents from Iraq, is it not time for the BBC to do likewise?

Geoff Hoon: That is obviously a matter for the BBC. All I would ask is that all who watch these programmes—and this applies equally well to the broadcasters and journalists who are there—consider carefully the material that is put in front of those broadcasters and journalists by their Iraqi minders. All the journalists have people who supervise their movements. In such circumstances, we are right to be suspicious that they are not able to pursue freely the kind of investigations that we would expect journalists to be able to pursue in a free society.

Alan Simpson: There have been some civilian casualties for which I am sure that even the Secretary of State would accept that there is a clear line of responsibility. They would include the seven women and children who were killed at a checkpoint and the 15 members of a single family who were killed when their lorry was attacked by an Apache helicopter. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether current UK rules of engagement allow for such attacks on civilians; whether the rules of engagement for UK troops differ from those of US troops; whether he will place in the House of Commons Library the details of the two sets of rules of engagement; and whether he will confirm that, as has happened previously, any UK troops who were involved in instances of unjustified killings of civilians would be likely to face criminal charges?

Geoff Hoon: We do not comment in detail on rules of engagement, and certainly not on those of the United States. I would be a lot more persuaded by my hon. Friend's observations if, at the same time as mentioning the tragic deaths of seven women and children, he had also mentioned the deaths of the four US marines who were killed in a deliberate car bomb attack, perpetrated by a fanatic. In such circumstances, it is perhaps perfectly understandable—although I am not excusing it in any sense at all—that soldiers who are having to deal with a difficult situation at a checkpoint and who know that four of their comrades have been killed in that way are perhaps reacting in a way that we might not want them to. That is not to say that the accounts that have been given, again, by particular journalists are necessarily the only version of events that we should all accept. An investigation is going on into what went on at the checkpoints, and it is important that we await the outcome of that before judging the facts quite so prejudicially.

Roy Beggs: I too would like to place on record my full support for the coalition forces, my sympathies to all who suffer because of this conflict, and my admiration for the efforts that are being made to get humanitarian aid to those who need it. I ask the Secretary of State to share my disappointment that the conflict has prevented a group of disabled athletes who were to be guests in my home town of Larne from coming to Ireland to compete in the Special Olympics. Will he reassure them that, in the event of the conflict being over before the games start in June, they will still be most warmly welcomed in the United Kingdom? Will he again affirm that our enemy is Saddam Hussein, that Saddam Hussein is the enemy of the Iraqi people, and that he has got to be got rid of?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final observation. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people and we believe that Iraq will be a much better place once Saddam Hussein's regime is removed.
	The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not familiar with the situation of the disabled athletes. However, if he writes to me, I will consider the matter as sympathetically as I possibly can.

Glenda Jackson: If it is right that every aspect of what we do is held up to public scrutiny, and as several reputable British journalists have already died in Iraq attempting to make that true for the public, perhaps the Secretary of State would care to amend his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), which seemed to support the calls for the censorship of British journalists that were emanating from around the House? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept what journalists are saying to us, will he please accord some validity to what the International Red Cross says about its perception that excessive force is being used on women and children? I am perfectly prepared to accept that the coalition is attempting to reduce civilian casualties, but surely it behoves the coalition to examine what is coming from the International Red Cross and to amend its procedures accordingly.

Geoff Hoon: What I was inviting the House to do was to contrast the situation in which journalists are accompanying coalition forces right on to the front line and are able to send their material back uncensored to our homes for us all to see in real time, and the public attention that goes with that and the public debate that often accompanies it, with the situation in those parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein's regime, where we simply cannot see the kind of brutality that we are aware takes place. I also made comments, which I stand by, about certain reports on particular incidents. I have read those reports extremely carefully and I am certainly prepared to consider criticism of the behaviour of coalition forces if it is warranted. What I am not prepared to do is to accept at face value an account of an incident given by a man in a marketplace in Baghdad, and it is simply absurd to suggest—

Glenda Jackson: It was the International Red Cross—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must listen to the answer. It may not be the answer that she is looking for, but she must listen.

Glenda Jackson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that was not the question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sometimes, the question that has been asked is not always answered to the satisfaction of the Member.

Geoff Hoon: All I am saying—and I see no reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) should have any difficulty with it—is that before rushing to judgment we should allow a proper investigation to take place. The difference in a democratic society is that we allow such investigations. We face up to the issue and are prepared to recognise that we may have some responsibility, but at the same time we do not rush to judgment in blaming—in this case—coalition forces without a shred of corroborating evidence other than evidence supplied by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Bill Wiggin: Earlier on, the Secretary of State made two welcome comments. The first was about the contribution of the Territorials and the second was about the situation facing families. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that regular units have family officers and that Territorial units would have such officers if they were going into battle as regular units. Will he make sure that the families of all soldiers serving in the Gulf receive the same high standards of care as regular soldiers expect?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Reservists are pooled from a wide variety of places in the United Kingdom and they do not necessarily have the same facilities as are available to regular forces, which, for example, allow families to meet and information to be passed on. We are addressing that and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is responsible for reservist matters, is looking into the matter with some urgency in order to establish a proactive system, which means that we shall go out and contact the families of reservists to reassure them and give them the support and help that is available to families of our regular forces.

Business of the House

Ben Bradshaw: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
	Monday 7 April—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill.
	Tuesday 8 April—Second Reading of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
	Wednesday 9 April—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 10 April—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 11 April—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Monday 14 April—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	The provisional business for the week after the Easter recess will include:
	Monday 28 April—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords], followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks in May will be:
	Thursday 1 May—A debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Financing of Terrorism.
	Thursday 8 May—A debate on the report from the Public Administration Committee on the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

Eric Forth: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that business statement.
	Is it not about time that we had a debate on political donations? Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm the recent story that Lord Sainsbury has apparently given £2.5 million to the Labour party? Is it any coincidence that a ministerial reshuffle is coming up? We know that, because the Parliamentary Secretary told us last week. Is it a coincidence that a Minister has given the Labour party £2.5 million just ahead of a reshuffle? Could it be anything to do with consolidating his position? In any case, does that mean that the Labour party is now the party of the rich? It would seem that such matters deserve immediate attention in the House and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an urgent debate on them and related matters.
	On 27 March, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
	"I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on his important discussions with President Bush and the Secretary-General of the United Nations."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 454.]
	By my calculations, four parliamentary days have passed since then, but we have not yet had a statement from the Prime Minister. So something is wrong there, not least because the Prime Minister told us yesterday:
	"I intend to make a further statement on Iraq before the Easter recess."—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 908.]
	There are seven parliamentary days until we rise for the Easter recess on 14 April. Has the Parliamentary Secretary had a chat with the Prime Minister about the meaning of "earliest opportunity"? Is the Parliamentary Secretary as let down and disappointed as I imagine he must be that the Prime Minister has failed to honour the commitment that the Parliamentary Secretary made to us on the Prime Minister's behalf only last week? Will he tell us when the Prime Minister will honour us with a statement on Iraq; or is the Prime Minister too busy organising his reshuffle to come to the House and tell us about Iraq? While we are on the subject of the reshuffle, where the devil is the new Leader of the House?

Ben Bradshaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I should be delighted to have a debate on party political funding—although I think that we shall be unable to find time for it—because it would enable us to remind the House and the wider public that we have actually reformed the system of party political funding. The only reason that we know where political parties get their money is because of what the Government have done. We still have absolutely no idea where the Conservative party got any of its money during the 18 years when it was in power. Such a debate would also give me and others the opportunity to congratulate Lord Sainsbury on his public-spiritedness. I made an interesting calculation overnight: Lord Sainsbury has set the rest of us a good example but, if the reports are true, he is contributing a lower proportion of his wealth to the Labour party than I am. If the right hon. Gentleman is accusing me of trying to curry favour with my ministerial colleagues, he is barking up the wrong tree.
	On the question about the Prime Minister, the shadow Leader of the House may be interested to know that during the six weeks of military action in the last Gulf war, under the then Conservative Government, seven oral statements were made to the House. In the first two weeks of the present campaign, there have already been six statements. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he intends to make another statement before the Easter recess. The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that during the previous Gulf war, under his Government, the then Prime Minister made only two statements during the whole six-week duration of the conflict.
	The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He constantly complains that there has been no reshuffle, and he now accuses the Prime Minister of spending too much time organising one. I do not know whether his speculation is true, but I draw his attention to the words of the Prime Minister's official spokesman, who, when asked yesterday when there would be a new Leader of the House, replied "Shortly."

Paul Tyler: I would welcome a debate on political party funding, because it would give the Minister an opportunity to repeat the information that he gave me the other day about the amount of state aid that has been given to the Conservative party since its defeat in 1997. If I recall the figure correctly, it is some £15 million. Now that the leader of the Conservative party is in the pay of the Government, the House should be given an opportunity to decide whether we are getting good value for public money.
	May I endorse a point made by the Conservative spokesman? I am delighted to have his support, because two weeks ago, he and his colleagues seemed to pooh-pooh my suggestion that we needed a new Leader of the House.
	Will the Minister please give us an indication of when he expects to receive the Wicks committee report on the politicisation of the civil service, with special reference to special advisers? Can we have a statement and debate? Has he seen the very interesting day-to-day chronicle in The Independent today, headed "How the deafening noise of war 'buried' Labour's bad news"? Does he agree that we do not have to accept the Jo Moore conspiracy theorists' approach to those matters to recognise that some very important decisions and announcements have been made in recent weeks and buried quietly—very low-key announcements.

Keith Hill: Such as?

Paul Tyler: Such as a major U-turn by the Deputy Prime Minister on capping council tax rises and, not least, the issue that has just been raised about donations to the Labour party. Could we please have an opportunity to discuss the role of those responsible for communications in the civil service as soon as possible?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the generous increases which the Government have ensured that both Opposition parties receive from the taxpayer to help fund their offices. I am glad that he would welcome a debate on party political funding, as would I.
	I am afraid that I cannot answer his question on the Wicks committee, but I shall endeavour to find out and write to him.
	I saw the report in The Independent today, and I found it a rather desperate piece of newspaper spinning. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been lots of news that people have not paid very much attention to because of the conflict going on in Iraq, including a continued rise in employment, which is at record levels since records began, and a very big rise in the minimum wage, which has been criticised by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—something which I am sure all my colleagues will wish to remind the electorate in the run-up to May's elections.

Harry Barnes: Does not the statement that we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Defence reveal the need to hold a debate on the reconstruction of Iraq after the war? For example, if the Iraqis are to run Iraq, will they determine the contracts for the reconstruction of their country? Will there be a role for the labour movement in Iraq? There is a big tradition of trade union activity in the docks in Basra and the oilfields, often suppressed by regimes, and 1 million people turned out in demonstrations on international labour day in Baghdad way back in 1959. However, there might be a problem with President Bush, as the leaders of those activities, often at the cutting edge of the labour movement in Iraq, have always come from the Iraqi communist party.

Ben Bradshaw: As I said, the Government have an unprecedented good record of coming to the House to make statements on that issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already made such a statement and I expect that she will wish to return as time goes on to update the House and give hon. Members an opportunity to question her on that. I cannot promise to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House before the Easter recess, but it is the sort of subject about which hon. Members may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. However, my hon. Friend's questions emphasise the importance of moving as quickly as we possibly can to ensure that post-Saddam Iraq is run by the Iraqi people for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State for Defence has been very good in coming to the House to give statements; but, by contrast, the Secretary of State for International Development has been noticeable by her almost complete absence. One way in which the Opposition can usually address the failure of Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box is by using Opposition Supply days. We are now nearly halfway through the parliamentary year and, so far, we have been allocated only four out of the 17 Opposition Supply days. Would it not be fairer to have a more even allocation of Opposition Supply days throughout the year; otherwise, in May or June, or sometime later this year, we will have not Opposition Supply days but Opposition Supply weeks. That seems very unfair.

Ben Bradshaw: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he understands that there are sometimes periods of very heavy Government business, with the inevitable consequence that Opposition days sometimes get bunched up. That has happened in the past under all Governments. I appreciate his appreciation of the regularity with which the Secretary of State for Defence has come to the House. Today's statement was his fourth in just two weeks since hostilities began, and, as I said, there have already been as many statements in two weeks under this Government as there were in six weeks during the previous Gulf war under the Conservative Government.

Joan Ruddock: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, but I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that he will know that there has been very heavy fighting in Najaf, Karbala and Nasiriyah. No one knows the humanitarian consequences of that fighting, and the International Red Cross is asking when it will get access. Will my hon. Friend discuss that with the Secretary of State for International Development and ensure that she comes to the House for a further discussion of the humanitarian situation?

Ben Bradshaw: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's request and those of other hon. Members for the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House to make a further statement before the Easter recess. I would simply point out to my hon. Friend that the Red Cross and Red Crescent are already doing an excellent job in those parts of Iraq—

Joan Ruddock: Access?

Ben Bradshaw: I know that they do not have access to everywhere, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Iraqi regime has given them no access to our prisoners of war, which is an absolute scandal, and she may like to draw attention to that as well.

Julian Lewis: When the acting Leader of the House receives representations, as he undoubtedly will, from the Liberal Democrats for greater shares in debate, more parliamentary time and so on, will he bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats' so-called effective opposition is represented here today at this important business statement by not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher and that, apparently, none is here either to take part in the important debate on the Adjournment, when hon. Members have the opportunity to raise matters of importance to their constituents?

Ben Bradshaw: Perhaps Liberal Democrat Members are out in the country, worrying about their local council seats.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend will have received a letter from Mr. Speaker about the courtesies that Members of the House should extend to one another. Can we have a debate about ministerial courtesies to Members of Parliament? I was informed only yesterday that the Minister responsible for community and race relations would be visiting the city of Leicester. That gives hon. Members absolutely no time to make arrangements to greet Ministers warmly when they come into their constituencies or when they see constituents. I do not blame the Minister himself, but he has a vast number of civil servants who could perhaps drop a note to hon. Members to tell them well in advance that they are coming, so that we can be prepared for those important visits. Will my hon. Friend either provide time for a debate or write to Lord Filkin and remind him of those responsibilities?

Ben Bradshaw: I will happily write to the noble Lord to remind him of the usual conventions of the House.

Alex Salmond: Will the political funding for the Conservative party be affected by the grave news that 12.5 per cent.—one eighth—of its entire parliamentary party in the Scottish Parliament has defected in the past two days to a new party of some kind?

Julian Lewis: How many is that?

Alex Salmond: One eighth of 16 is two, but I am more concerned about the staff resources available to the Cabinet Secretary, who, despite having the entire home civil service at his disposal, has not managed to answer the letter of 14 March from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), which demonstrated how holding a Budget in an election period broke the Government's own rules of guidance on political announcements. Will the acting Leader of the House arrange for a debate on that? Will he examine the staff resources available to Sir Andrew Turnbull, because we would not like the suspicion to be created that it is embarrassing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be trying to do that and fiddle an election campaign—a point that has already be deprecated this week by the Electoral Commission?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, because today's Financial Times reports that his party was making much about a letter that it had received from the Electoral Commission, which it has also written to me. It makes it quite clear that decisions on the Budget
	"fall outside the remit of the Electoral Commission"
	and that there was
	"no reason . . . why a budget should not be presented during an election campaign".

Anne Picking: The single biggest issue that is raised in my constituency is the miners' pension surplus. Will my hon. Friend consider securing a debate on that matter, as it would be very welcome in mining communities such as mine?

Ben Bradshaw: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will be able to secure time on the Floor of the House for such a debate. I know that the issue that she raises is of great concern to her constituents, and it would make an excellent subject for a debate in Westminster Hall. As she knows, the share of surpluses taken by the Government is the contribution that schemes pay for a guarantee of pensions, which is looking increasingly valuable for the schemes' members given the current difficulties in the financial markets, particularly for pensions.

Mark Field: All of us in the House would accept the democratic right of people to protest. However, a number of impromptu protests have gone through the west end every weekend. They are causing great difficulties to traders, particularly in Oxford street, Regent street, Piccadilly and the Strand, all of which are in my constituency. Will the Minister ensure that the Home Secretary or another Home Office Minister comes to the House to make a statement to ensure that Government policy contains a fair balance between the interests of public protest and those of traders in central London? Will that statement place particular emphasis on the policy for weekend protests and the expected protest on 1 May?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not sure that I will manage to persuade a Home Office Minister or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on that issue. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to provide me with the details of the disruption that has been caused, I will happily pass them on to my right hon. Friend for his consideration.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the acting Leader of the House cast his mind forward? The House adjourns on 14 April for 13 days. The Government are pursuing a war against the people and the Government of Iraq, and there are large numbers of military and civilian casualties. Instead of having such an Adjournment, could the House not meet continuously through that period to receive reports and be able to debate this important and serious issue?

Ben Bradshaw: I would have more sympathy for my hon. Friend's request if he had not said that we were pursuing a war against the people of Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are pursuing a war to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the people of Iraq so that they can get on and build a new country for themselves in their own interests.
	My hon. Friend is right, however. There are no plans at the moment to recall Parliament during the Easter recess. The Government keep the situation under constant review and, as we have with statements and debates, we have an extremely good record of recalling Parliament when that is necessary.

Angela Watkinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the number of the petitions signed in my constituency and up and down the country by the customers of small high street pharmacies who are concerned about their closure? Could we have a debate on the Floor of the House to explore the way in which the range of services provided by high street pharmacies could be expanded to assist over-burdened GPs and accident and emergency departments, and to increase customer choice?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that there will be a chance to debate these issues further before the Government come out with their final response to the report. Like the hon. Lady, I have received masses of signatures and petitions from my local pharmacies, and I know that it is an issue of great concern. I think that I am right in saying that she attended the recent cross-cutting debate in Westminster Hall that was supposed be about issues concerning elderly people. Because of the interest in community pharmacies, the debate was almost totally dominated by that subject.

John Battle: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 257 that is in my name and is entitled "Low Income Debtors and Poverty"?
	[That this House notes the extent of debt amongst those on a low income with over three million people entering into debt on their doorstep through extortionate lending; believes tackling debt and financial exclusion must be given priority in the Government's anti-poverty strategy; and calls for coordination of the current fragmentary approach setting departmental policies and actions within complementary strategies to tackle financial exclusion and eradicate poverty, focusing on reforming the Social Fund, tackling extortionate lending and promoting affordable credit through credit unions.]
	The motion has received the support of 212 Members on both sides of the House, and highlights the plight of 3 million people in Britain on low incomes. Every day, unscrupulous and massively overcharging moneylenders on the doorstep draw them deeper and deeper into debt. Although I welcome the Government's efforts and actions to tackle poverty and social exclusion, a full debate in this Chamber—we have had one or two in Westminster Hall—would provide Ministers with an opportunity to give us a proper joined-up plan of action to end this rip-off, so that we get better financial support to the poorest in our society.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important subject. I know from experience in my constituency that this problem causes misery to a great many people. I cannot promise him that we will be able to find time for a debate on this subject alone before the Easter recess, but he should be able to work the subject into a speech that he might like to make in the debates on the Budget. We will then be able to debate as a whole not just that issue, but all the other measures that the Government are taking to tackle poverty.

John Bercow: Following the highly pertinent inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), may I reiterate the call for an early debate on the subject of effective opposition and participation in elections? Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that such a debate would provide a first-class opportunity for the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to explain why, as has been reported to me today, those two parties have failed to find candidates to contest no fewer than five seats on Aylesbury Vale district council against the excellent Conservative candidates who will be seeking election?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so disappointed that some of his local Conservative candidates will not face excellent opposition in the local elections. I am sure that that will come as a disappointment to all the Labour voters in that area. All parties do what they can to attract as many candidates as possible, and I know from my experience that there are plenty of places in the country where the Conservatives have difficulty finding enough candidates.

Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend will have noticed that al-Jazeera, the Arabic channel, has been having some problems in Baghdad recently. I have several times over the past week made representations to the House authorities asking that at least one Arabic channel should be placed alongside the 24 channels at our disposal in the House. It is important to see the images that the Arabs are seeing, so that we can better judge the progress of the war and assess why certain people react in certain ways. Does he have any news on that?

Ben Bradshaw: I have no news for my hon. Friend, because this matter is not within my responsibility; it is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I know that he is aware of my hon. Friend's request and, if other hon. Members feel the same as she does, I urge them to make a similar request. These decisions tend to be made on the basis of the strength of feeling among Members of the House.

Henry Bellingham: Will the acting Leader of the House consider the case of PowderJect and the possibility of a debate on that subject? Will he also consider the case of another Labour donor, Paul Drayson, who has just been put on the final shortlist for a contract for the latest batch of smallpox vaccines worth more than £50 million? Is he aware that PowderJect is currently being investigated by the National Audit Office for possible irregularities in a £32 million contract for the first batch of vaccines after the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), revealed to me in a written answer on 15 October 2002 that the Government could have gone straight to the ultimate manufacturers, the east German company, IDT, and probably saved the taxpayer £20 million? When will the NAO report be published? Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that it will not be published and therefore buried on Budget day?

Ben Bradshaw: No, it will be published. If the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that a decision on something as important as the smallpox vaccine would be based on a party-political donation, that is a preposterous thing to suggest. His point would carry more credibility if his party had declared a single one of the donations that it received in the 18 years that it was in power.

Ernie Ross: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the press release that was put out by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury this morning, indicating the determination of the European Union to take action over the proof of origin of produce coming from the illegal settlements in the west bank? Will he arrange for a debate, in the Chamber or elsewhere, to allow us to consider that EU agreement, which was entered into in June 2000? We suspect that the Israelis have been breaking one part of it ever since.

Ben Bradshaw: I am not aware of my hon. Friend's last point. However, as the Minister who used to be responsible for that part of the world, I am aware of the general issue and of the great work that he has done to raise these matters. I am pleased—I hope that he is as well—that we do at last seem to be making progress, thanks in part to the work that he has done and the lead taken by the British Government.

David Taylor: Did not last summer's crisis demonstrate that exam marking is a somewhat inexact science? Does not today's publication of A-level league tables perpetuate the myth that schools can readily be ranked by results? Will my hon. Friend try to find time for a debate in Westminster Hall to investigate these matters and perhaps to expose the rather sad but obvious truth that using league tables as performance indicators can be educationally erroneous, statistically specious and politically pointless?

Ben Bradshaw: It is not in my power to allocate time in Westminster Hall. It is within my hon. Friend's rights to apply for a debate there, and I urge him to do so if he feels so strongly about this subject. It would have been nice if in his question he had reminded the House that last year's A-level results were the best ever.

Jon Trickett: I return to the question of former mining communities. My hon. Friend might be interested to learn that in Featherstone there is not one Tory candidate in the elections this year.
	The largest compensation packages in history are being given to those miners suffering from industrial diseases caused by the negligence of the previous owners of the mines. Will my hon. Friend try to find time for a debate on the matter? In my constituency, more than 3,000 former miners have submitted claims, and well over £70 million in compensation has already been paid. However, a debate would allow us to congratulate the Government on this settlement. We could debate the way in which the scheme has been rolled out, and perhaps air the case of those few constituents who sadly, but increasingly frequently, find that they were offered an interim statement that turned out to be larger than the final settlement. That causes frustration and disappointment. A debate would provide a great opportunity for us to discuss those problems, which are important to the families. However, given the scale of things, it is still a fantastic and welcome scheme.

Ben Bradshaw: I will take up the specific point of interim payments with the Ministers responsible and ask them to write to my hon. Friend. I am pleased that, overall, he is happy with the way that the scheme has worked. Perhaps one of the reasons why his part of the world is now a Tory-free zone is the disgraceful way in which the previous Tory Government treated the miners to whom he has referred.

David Cairns: Can my hon. Friend arrange for a statement from a Foreign Office Minister on protection and treatment of UK nationals living and working in the middle east? Two of my constituents—one is a relative working and living in the middle east—have been either the victims of harassment by members of the population of the countries that they are living in, or have witnessed it.
	We understand that there is a great deal of anger in the Arab world about the action that is being taken. However, the citizens of Arab countries do not have the right to vent that anger on British citizens living and working in those countries, who have made a valuable contribution, both economically and socially, over many years. It would be good to hear what correspondence or dialogue the Foreign Office is having with other countries in the Arab world to ensure protection for British citizens during this difficult time.

Ben Bradshaw: If my hon. Friend has not already given the Foreign Office details of those incidents, I am sure that it would be interested in receiving them. It is generally my experience, as a former Foreign Office Minister for that part of the world, that the Governments of those countries themselves are extremely sensitive to such stories coming out because it affects their reputations and impacts on tourism and so forth.
	I suspect that those incidents are still very isolated. I think that the experience of most Members and of ordinary members of the public when travelling in the Arab world is that the levels of hospitality and friendship, in spite of what is going on, are still extremely high. One is treated extremely well. If my hon. Friend can let me have the details, I will certainly look into the incidents to which he referred.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend will be aware that the eyes of both the Arab and the Muslim worlds are on the House during these difficult times. Will he use his good offices to ensure that, in the event that our troops, as is hoped, are successful, magnanimity will be the order of the day and any unnecessary jingoism will be discouraged by the House?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I think that, given the way in which our armed forces are already conducting themselves in Iraq, especially in those parts of southern Iraq which they are making safe, there is already proof in their behaviour that they are doing exactly that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned earlier, despite our armed forces being fired at from holy shrines in some of the holy cities, they are not firing back. That is another example of the intense sensitivity—it is due partly to the experience that our forces have had in places such as Northern Ireland—with which our armed forces approach the difficult situation that they face in Iraq.

Glenda Jackson: May we please have a debate, not in Westminster Hall but on the Floor of the House, and in Government time, on the situation for a post-conflict Iraq and the transition to it? Grave concern is being expressed, not only within the House but in the country and the wider world, that the driving force should be the United States exclusively. Despite the statements of our Government, there is still deep disbelief that the United States will pay any attention to the United Nations.
	If my hon. Friend is attempting to create a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the potential humanitarian crisis now in Iraq, perhaps he could point out to her that the UN has called for corridors of peace, which UNICEF successfully established during the first Gulf war, both in Lebanon and Sudan, to ensure that as the aid comes in, it does not just sit on the dockside but is distributed to the people who need it most. This clearly requires agreement on behalf of the combatants, but it is not enough to wait until the conflict is over because a real humanitarian crisis is brewing.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall certainly pass on that further request from my hon. Friend for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I would point out that in the statement this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and in Defence questions on Monday, a great deal was said and many questions were asked about a post-Saddam Iraq. It is important in that context that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Our armed forces are still involved in a dangerous military conflict, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said earlier, people should not assume is about to come to an end. Perhaps the moment of greatest danger is still ahead of us. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity in the House to debate the future of Iraq, which I hope my hon. Friend agrees will be much rosier when Saddam has gone.

Point of Order

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister inadvertently, no doubt, to mislead the House by not completing a quotation? In business questions, the acting Leader of the House told us in a quotation that the Electoral Commission
	"knows of no reason in law why a budget should not be presented during an election campaign".
	The quote continues:
	"although by well-established convention significant government announcements are avoided in the 'purdah' period running up to general elections. April 9th is within the formal period of campaign to elections to the Scottish Parliament . . . and it seems right that announcements relevant to those nations should be similarly avoided. As a general principle, the Commission would wish to see as level a playing field as our political system will allow and for that reason"
	does not like the Government to
	"use its position during an election campaign in a way which might be perceived as seeking electoral advantage."
	The acting Leader of the House is a fair-minded man. He has the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to make it clear that he was not attempting to mislead the House as to the views of the Electoral Commission.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman's comments are none the less on the record.

BILL PRESENTED

Road and Street Works (Notice and Compensation)

Keith Vaz presented a Bill to require highway authorities, street authorities and statutory undertakers to give notice to residents and businesses of road and street works; to provide for compensation if a notice is not issued; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 87].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]

Ross Cranston: In this Adjournment debate, I wish to address three matters: first, the war in Iraq; secondly, a constituency interest which, in fact, has a wider national application; and thirdly, I want to say something about Parliament.
	I want to say something about the laws of war or, as they are correctly called, the rules of humanitarian law. Humanitarian law applies to the conduct of war, and is different from the question whether a state may lawfully use armed force. I said in the House well before the conflict started that what we are doing in Iraq is perfectly lawful. However, the separate body of humanitarian law attempts to limit the effects of armed conflict, mainly by restricting the means and methods of warfare. It is contained in customary international law, and now most notably the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols of 1977. Humanitarian law demands that the means and methods of warfare must discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and military objects on the one hand and civilians and civilian, cultural, religious, medical and similar objects on the other. There is also a prohibition on means and methods of warfare that cause severe or long-term damage to the environment. In addition, certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons and anti-personnel mines, are banned.
	States have an obligation to ensure that their armed forces and citizens comply with the rules of humanitarian law, and must have a system to punish breaches of those rules. This country has created offences in our domestic law for breaches of the Geneva conventions and the protocols. My experience as a Law Officer during the Kosovo conflict was that we are scrupulous in complying with the rules of humanitarian law. That does not mean that mistakes do not occur, but I was impressed by how mightily our armed forces attempt to comply with their obligations under the Geneva conventions. We may discount media reports of the behaviour of some Iraqi combatants, but it is clear that there is no moral equivalence between the means and methods of the British armed forces and certain elements in the Iraqi forces.
	As for combatants, the Geneva conventions require, first, that they be members of a state's armed forces. Secondly there is a principle of distinction—not only must combatants comply with the laws of war, as I have outlined, but they must distinguish themselves from civilians, not least by carrying their weapons openly. If combatants fail to comply with those requirements, they run the risk of losing protections accorded to prisoners of war by the conventions. At a basic level, those conventions demand respect for the lives and physical and mental integrity of POWs, but there are other advantages such as registration and visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the last few days, the status of the Fedayeen militia has been at issue. The Ministry of Defence has said that there is no case for treating those paramilitary forces as unlawful combatants, whether or not they are wearing military uniforms. That is right—they are identifiable, are in a war zone, carry their weapons openly and hence are entitled to POW status. Even unlawful combatants must not be treated inhumanely—I shall discuss that issue in relation to the detentions at Guantanamo bay.
	In my view, British troops are governed by the European convention on human rights. The United States is a signatory to the international convention on civil and political rights, so its troops are bound by similar standards. Both conventions include standards such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, and the right to liberty or, to put it another way, the right not to be unlawfully detained. That last right is at issue in Guantanamo bay. I have raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary by letter and in parliamentary questions. One of the detainees, Shafiq Rasul, lives just outside my constituency in Tipton, and his family is well known in Dudley. The United States uses various legal arguments to justify the detention Shafiq and others. First, it invokes the principle of distinction, which I have already mentioned. The argument is that the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were unlawful combatants because they were not members of the armed forces of a state. That is certainly the case with al-Qaeda, which is terrorist organisation, but the argument has less force in the case of the Taliban. The United States, however, argues that those combatants are not entitled to protections for POWs in the Geneva conventions.
	Secondly, as foreign nationals not on US sovereign territory, those detainees do not enjoy the ordinary constitutional protections of Americans. That contention has been upheld by the federal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That decision is regrettable because it turns on an arcane point of property law—the 1903 lease of lands agreement between the US and Cuba established that Cuba had de jure sovereignty over Guantanamo bay. The reality is that Shafiq and other Britons are being held indefinitely. Our Court of Appeal considered the matter late last year in the Abassi case and said that the detainees are being held
	"in apparent contravention of fundamental principles recognised by both English and American jurisdictions and by international law".
	What is objectionable, as the Court of Appeal, said, is that Shafiq, Abassi and others are without any opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention before the courts.

Rob Marris: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the de jure jurisdiction of Cuba under the 1903 lease. Is he aware of what that lease says to give individuals rights that they have otherwise been denied?

Ross Cranston: The wording of the lease is such that Cuba has de jure sovereignty. Whatever the de facto position, the court held that, under the lease, Cuba still had de jure sovereignty. Of course, that does not accord with the realities of the situation, as the United States obviously has control of that base.
	Once the war in Iraq is over, we would be perfectly entitled to press the United States to act in accordance with the rule of law in relation to Britons who are detained at Guantanamo bay. If they are guilty of offences, they must be punished but, by the same token, they must have the right to be accorded a hearing before a court or tribunal.
	I now turn to a constituency interest. These are difficult times for manufacturing. There is a long-term structural decline, added to which there is a cyclical slowdown because of the world economic recession. There is a significant effect on jobs, and about 10,000 jobs a month are being lost in manufacturing. It still accounts for 20 per cent. of gross domestic product, and in my area of the black country and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), it accounts for 30 per cent. of GDP. A higher proportion of people are employed in manufacturing in our region than is the case nationally.
	What do we have to do to move from low value added production to a more highly competitive economy, where good design, high technology and innovation will give us a competitive edge? What can Government do? The Government have established the Manufacturing Advisory Service. The figures issued in the past couple of days demonstrate that that is proving to be a popular service. It is responding to what manufacturers want. There have been about 8,500 inquiries, and 1,000 of those have led to further consultancies.

Angela Browning: It is impressive that manufacturers have responded. I speak as someone who worked for a British manufacturer for eight years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that many of those inquiries from manufacturers are prompted by their need for Government advice about how they should interpret, implement and apply the plethora of legislation that the Government have imposed on manufacturers since coming to office?

Ross Cranston: I do not accept that argument. I understand that the great majority of those inquiries are technical, with manufacturers asking how they can improve their performance so that they can move to higher value production. The Department of Trade and Industry claims that the in-depth consultancy work under the scheme has resulted in average productivity savings of £85,000. I am rather sceptical about that figure, but it may be true.
	Government can do a great deal to improve skills. At a local level that can be done by colleges of education, such as Dudley college in my constituency. I have previously told the House of the virtues of Dudley college, which is the fourth biggest college in the country and offers traineeships and modern apprenticeships. It has a construction curriculum centre that has been recognised as a centre of excellence nationally. At national level Departments must work closely together, and in the past month or so I have been gratified that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has indicated that he will work much more closely with the DTI to improve skills levels in the economy.
	Industry itself can do a great deal. It is in the driving seat. Recently some of my hon. Friends and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were at the launch of the Black Country chamber of commerce manufacturing support campaign. [Interruption.] It is a great pity that the shadow Leader of the House was not able to attend. The chamber of commerce says in its detailed statement that it wants to work with various partners, especially the educational establishments, it wants to change the perception of manufacturing, and more importantly, it wants to identify champions of the sector so as to stimulate the growth of high quality manufacturing establishments. It speaks of
	"helping to identify niche segments, promoting higher value added activities, driving the way to fully exploit design and innovation, seeking to lead and inspire Businesses."
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, fully support that campaign. I invite the shadow Leader of the House to do likewise. I shall work with the chamber to advance that agenda.

John Bercow: The hon. and learned Gentleman breezily dismissed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Instead of speaking about what the Government can do, why does he not speak about what the Government should stop doing? Given that more than 99 per cent. of companies in this country employ fewer than 100 people, account for more than half of the private sector workforce and produce two fifths of our national output, why is he so complacent about the fact that those small businesses face a regulatory sea that is deeper and more hazardous than any that they have previously had to negotiate?

Ross Cranston: As I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I do not accept the argument that red tape is an unaffordable burden on the economy. Most of the regulation is designed to improve the position of those working for or affected by the activities of manufacturing establishments and businesses generally. I welcome that regulation.

David Winnick: Does not the criticism that has just been levelled at my hon. and learned Friend resemble the argument a few years ago that the national minimum wage would be disastrous and cause a great deal of unemployment? The Opposition have changed their tune on that.

Ross Cranston: As they must on a number of other matters, as well. We heard predictions that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost. Of course, the number of jobs has gone up by 1.5 million since 1997.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his generosity. He may have, as I have and as you may have, Madam Deputy Speaker, visited the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the west midlands based in West Bromwich. When I spoke to the advisers there, they did not speak about lots of inquiries about how to deal with red tape. They spoke about innovation, information sharing and how they could access the substantial funds that the Government have provided to help the transition in manufacturing to the high tech innovation to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

Ross Cranston: I agree. Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has reduced the number of sources that businesses must access if they want assistance. The West Bromwich centre is a good example of that.
	I come to the third aspect of my contribution. [Interruption.] I know that the shadow Leader of the House is looking forward to it. It relates to the nature of the House, which may interest him. We need to improve our procedures. Recently, I was part of a working party set up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, with the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). Under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd, the working party produced a report that was recently launched. It is entitled "Making Tax Law" and the argument of the working party paper was that fully to understand and enact tax legislation, we need entirely different procedures. It is an area where experts need to make a contribution much earlier in the process, so that we as legislators can fully appreciate what we are enacting.
	After six years in the House, it seems to me that we spend far too long on some matters and not enough time on others. Recently, I raised an issue that other hon. Members, including the shadow Leader of the House, might consider trivial: legislation to implement the UN convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that there is no legislative time at present to deal with that, but it is important for our position as an international trading economy to sign up to that convention as soon as we can. It is not acceptable that we cannot find legislative time for that.
	I want to say something about the House of Lords, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his Committee are still considering. Let me set out my stall at the outset. I am not impressed by the case for an elected second Chamber. Much of that case proceeds on a false premise, which was starkly set out in the report of the Public Administration Committee, which states that Parliament's key task is
	"holding the Government to account".
	Elsewhere, the Committee's report refers to Britain's "uniquely powerful Executive". Although it may not be described as the key task, the argument is that reform of the House of Lords is necessary primarily to hold the Government to account. The royal commission adopted the same approach and even quoted Lord Hailsham's aphorism about an elected dictatorship, although it conceded that constraints on Executive Government were provided, for example, by the media. That premise leads to the notion of increasing confidence, enhancing scrutiny powers and boosting the legitimacy of Parliament by reforming the House of Lords.
	In my view, once a party element is introduced into the equation, the key task of Parliament is not that of holding the Government to account. From the point of view of the governing party, it is to provide and sustain the Government. From the point of view of the main Opposition party, however, it is to undermine them. That does not mean that holding the Government to account goes out of the window, although from the point of view of members of the governing party, they will hold it to account as much through internal and informal party discussions as through parliamentary channels, if not more so. From the perspective of the main Opposition party or parties, that will happen as much through the media as through those channels.
	My first point is that, if one starts with what I believe is a more realistic assumption about Parliament's key task, one can reach different conclusions about reform of the House of Lords. If one is talking about enhancing Parliament's ability to enable the Government to meet their manifesto commitment, one will come to a different conclusion about the role of the House of Lords. Secondly, discussions about House of Lords reform tend to assume that the reformed body will not lead to constitutional deadlock. Neither the royal commission, the Select Committee on Public Administration nor the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform suggest any alteration to the Parliament Acts. It is said that they provide sufficient safeguards against such deadlock. Of course, there is consensus against the introduction of significant new powers for the second Chamber, although there are suggestions that there could be more effective control over statutory instruments and a role in relation to some constitutional Bills.
	My concern is not deadlock, which I concede would be rare. I am concerned about what an enhanced, more confident and legitimate House of Lords might do without any change in its formal powers. First, it can obstruct. In 1993–96, the average number of defeats was about 12 a year; since 1997, there have been at least three times as many. In addition to defeats, Bills have been withdrawn or delayed because of the Lords' obstruction.
	Without any change in the formal powers of the House of Lords, there is a danger that an enhanced, more confident and legitimate Chamber will strain at the practices and conventions on which our constitution is based. If there has been a constitutional practice that the Lords should not challenge the clearly expressed view of the Commons on major issues of public policy, it has been sorely tested in the past couple of years. At present, there is a power to veto statutory instruments. It was previously the convention that that power would not be used, but that has now been white ant-ed out. The convention that the Lords should not stand in the way of manifesto commitments would be even more severely tested than at present by an enhanced and more confident and legitimate House of Lords.
	I voted for abolition of the Lords, as unicameralism has its attractions—we have it in Scotland and other parts of Europe—but I can see that it is not a practical solution and it is, frankly, not on the cards. The difficulty with a fully and directly elected House is that the constitutional conventions will be under very great strain. None the less, reform must continue and we must deal with the hereditary peers. In terms of appointments, we should also ensure that the Lords do not become either cronies or a self-perpetuating oligarchy through an appointments committee of the great and good. We must also explore the possibility of indirect elections from the nations and regions.
	Those are my three main points and I ask that they be considered before the Easter Adjournment.

Angela Browning: I should like to pick up on two points. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that I am quickly coming to the view that either the House of Lords should be abolished or there should be an age limit on its membership, since my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I and others led the Conservative party to victory in the parliamentary pancake race, only to find that we were not awarded the cup, which was awarded to the Lords on points because they were older than us. [Hon. Members: "Outrageous."] I am therefore taking a much more vigorous interest in reform of their lordships' House.
	On a point of information, the record of the House will show very clearly that, in the 1992–97 Parliament, whenever both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Labour Members mentioned the minimum wage, they referred—this was more than six years ago—to a figure well in excess of £5 an hour. In fact, £5.75 was mentioned. It was on that basis that the Conservative party rightly warned against the impact in terms of job losses in certain sectors and about the differential effect on those who were higher up the scale.
	I should like to make three points and I shall try to do so in slightly less time than the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North took to make his speech, as I know that many Conservative Members wish to make substantive contributions. First, it would be remiss of me not to share with the House the up-to-date news on the resurfacing of the noisiest road in the country, which is situated in the best county of Britain—we now know that officially—Devon. I refer to the A30 from Honiton to Exeter. I hope that it was not an omen that I received the information on All Fools' day, but the Department said that the concrete-surfaced section in question would be resurfaced, although the time scale is somewhat loose. It will happen in either 2004–05 or 2006–07.
	Significantly, the roads listed for resurfacing are those where either 100 or more properties per kilometre are affected or the noise level is so high in terms of national comparisons that it is 3 dB greater than predicted. Clearly, the road is being resurfaced not because of the number of properties affected, but because of the noise level. Only four properties per kilometre are deemed to be affected, so the road must be very noisy indeed.
	I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents Exeter, feels keenly about the road and will be delighted if I stop standing up and asking him to sort it out. On a more serious note, I say to him that, when the road was under construction, I received many representations from people who were very concerned about the surface that was being chosen and the effect of the noise on nearby residents. At the time, I exchanged a lot of correspondence with the contractors and the Government. The contractors were able to choose from a menu of different surfaces. Of course, the noise aspect was flagged up in the inspectors' report, as it had been the subject of a public inquiry.
	I am now concerned about the fact that I had it in writing from the contractors that the concrete surface, which they euphemistically described as whisper concrete, would be no noisier than a blacktop or tarmac finish. If the evidence that we have seen this week about the decibel level of the road is correct, that information was wrong. The question that I now put to the Parliamentary Secretary, which I know that he will put to the appropriate Minister, is as follows. I have handed the written data to Ministers in the past, showing the nature of the commitment made on the part of the contractors in terms of noise level, and they are clearly in breach of contract. It was incumbent on them to choose from the menu of surfaces, especially as the issue had been highlighted in the public inquiry, a surface that would meet that commitment. If that is not the case, I want to know, as in any other commercial—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is making a hand gesture that Hansard will not be able to record. He is running his thumb over four fingers, which I assume means money. He is right that the matter is about money, but as there was a written commitment about the choice of surface, it is incumbent on the Government to charge the contractor with breach of contract.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Lady knows that I have supported her plea before. I have used the road and I continue to be amazed by local residents' patience. Does she accept that money is not the only factor, because if contractors are liable in the way that she suggests, surely we could speed up the process rather than having to wait until 2006?

Angela Browning: That is exactly why I am raising the matter. We now have details of the work on noise levels. The situation is clearly not only about the Treasury making money available to the Highways Agency. The Department for Transport has a duty because public money and a public contract were issued, although the finished product was in breach of written commitments. I hope that the Department will pursue the contractors about the written promises because we should not have to wait so long for the work to be done. If the Department could get some money back, the work might take place a little earlier, otherwise we will have to wait three or perhaps four years, at best, which is a long time for my constituents.

Rob Marris: Whisper concrete sounds a bit like a chocolate bar. Will the hon. Lady tell us when the contract was signed and when the road was laid, because if that was more than six years ago, the Government will not be able to sue for breach of contract because of provisions in the Limitation Act 1980?

Angela Browning: I think that it is less than six years since the work was completed, and the issue was flagged up at the time. I shall check on that because I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's memory is better than mine. I register the point now, as I have before with Ministers responsible for transport.
	The slow speed with which good and well-researched information about the safety of phone masts is identified is a matter of concern throughout the country and especially in parts of my constituency. I know that there is a separate debate about mobile phones themselves, but I wish to focus especially on the installation and use of masts. The Government often pray in aid the Stewart report, but much in that report and other European reports on the same subject suggests that we should err on the side of caution. It is all very well to do that, but that is done when there is insufficient properly researched information in the public domain. Such research has been based on the so-called heating effect of the emissions.
	I remain very concerned, especially because of ongoing research that I have commissioned to examine differentials in not only European countries, but countries further afield. Many countries set limits on acceptable emissions that are lower than ours. Although we are told that we err on the side of caution, I am not convinced that we have got it right. A mast in Crediton, in my constituency, complies with UK emission levels but would not have been allowed in other countries. Such disparities may be based on conflicting scientific information, so it is incumbent on us to access the best worldwide scientific research to try to plug the gaps in our knowledge.
	Thermal emissions and the heating effect are not the only aspects of the impact of phone masts that cause concern. The Exeter Express and Echo—the Parliamentary Secretary will know it only too well—recently printed an article about a Devon doctor, Dr. Blackwell, who speaks regularly about the subject. Dr. Blackwell said:
	"The tests they are carrying out regard thermal effects but we are looking at non-thermal effects. Heating from emissions is not the issue . . . Unfortunately, local authorities, when dealing with planning, are allowed only to refer to the guidelines on thermal effects".
	The article went on to say that Dr. Blackwell
	"claims emissions from masts weaken the blood-brain barrier and allow toxins to pass into brain cells. Evidence from countries such as Russia showed that pulsed radiation from masts could cause leukaemia, miscarriages, epilepsy and other ailments."
	We need more open-minded investigation of research from throughout the world to identify and fill gaps in the research programme.
	I am unhappy about the safety of mobile phone masts. I would not claim to be an expert on the technicalities, and I am sure that many hon. Members have more knowledge than I, but one of my constituents recently wrote to ask me:
	"Could you tell me how many Microcell transmitters are exceeding the power output expected for a Microcell and in fact are emitting powers comparable to a Macrocell".
	We all understand the demand for mobile phones and technology. Sometimes masts do not require planning permission if they are erected on land such as railway-owned land. Planning authorities work on what Government guidelines tell them, but the guidelines are based on an inexact science. That is not only dangerous but it makes the situation difficult for the planning authority.
	I want to say only one thing about the war, because this is not the time for a detailed examination of the questions that must be answered when it is over. Before the war began, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether we had learned lessons from our experiences in Afghanistan. Our special forces went into Afghanistan to try to locate Osama bin Laden in the mountains along the border with Pakistan only to find that there was no one there. The map of where they were going had been printed in the British press the day before and I told the Secretary of State that it beggared belief that we were so daft as to allow that. Although he did not use the same language as me, he seemed to agree.
	I have watched the news coming from Iraq, as everyone does. Although every reporter based in Iraq prefaces each report by saying, "I can't tell you where I am," in the end they do tell us. I do not know whether people have noticed this, but even if the reporters do not actually say where they are, a map is helpfully shown on the television screen to back up what they say. Consequently, information about troop movements and which bridges have been taken or are yet to be taken is broadcast on our screens. We are mad to put out such information in advance of sending our troops in to deal with the situation.

Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that this is not the time to consider Iraq in any depth, but I am afraid that my speech will be entirely about Iraq. At business questions, I called for a debate on the reconstruction of Iraq after the war, including discussion of how a democracy will be put together and how its society will be rebuilt. I shall not enter that debate now, although I might set out some of the problems with which we must deal. A debate on reconstruction will involve us all, irrespective of our position on whether the invasion should have started, because we should all be equally concerned about Iraq's future. Those of us who oppose the war must face the fact that it is progressing and unlikely to be abandoned. We must therefore consider the consequences and what should happen when we reach the end of the war.
	I want to use a book by Dilip Hiro, entitled "Iraq: A Report from the Inside", which I recommend to hon. Members. It is currently available in bookshops; it has hit the market at the right time although it was written before the war started. Its points about the risks are relevant because they are now being experienced, and we should examine them.
	Dilip Hiro has written about the middle east, India and racism. He has produced some 20 books, although this is the first that I have seen. I shall read more of his work, especially his background to the current position in the middle east, Iraq and more widely. I want to consider some of his points about the danger of engaging in the sort of invasion in which we are involved.
	First, he states:
	"Iraqis are known as staunch nationalists. They mounted a yearlong popular uprising against the British mandate in 1920."
	We should be conscious that we are the old imperial power in Iraq. I shall speak about the problem of the United States of America being our partner later. Its involvement is perhaps even more problematic. The United Kingdom's involvement creates great problems. We drew Iraq's boundaries, and did so deliberately in our interest. We excluded Kuwait from the Basra area and added the Kurdish area to it to create an area that we believed we could run and control, and perhaps divide and rule. We gave it a limited port facility in the south of the country, which is its only access to the sea.
	The League of Nations handed us a mandate to run Iraq. When it gained its independence in the 1930s, we retained Crown territory for 25 years or so under a treaty arrangement. It included the camps of Habbaniya, Shu'aiba and Basra. Basra was a movements unit, where I did my national service from 1954–56. There were Iraqi levies with British officers, who operated in the country. The agreement ended in 1955, and Harold Macmillan, as Foreign Secretary, did a deal in the Baghdad pact, which allowed our troops to remain. They were there, for example, during the Suez crisis in the following year.The Crown territory was handed over, the Iraqi levies were disbanded and given the opportunity, which most of them took, to join the Iraqi army.
	The Suez crisis in 1956 had a big impact on Iraq. In 1958, a revolution took place under Kassim. It was a free officers' movement, which enjoyed popular support. The Iraqi communist party was one of the major underground movements, which had been active in the docks and oilfields for a long time. It has often expressed the views of the Iraqi labour movement. For five years, there was great hope, until a coup took place. After coup and counter-coup, matters degenerated to the position under Saddam Hussein.
	Iraqis are staunch nationalists, whether they are Shi'a, Sunni or from other groups. Perhaps it is less true of the Kurds, who are loyal to Kurdistan. The point is important because it makes it difficult for Britain to be accepted as the shaper of the future in Iraq.
	Secondly, Dilip Hiro writes:
	"Saddam is unlikely to repeat the blunder of exposing his armed men and material in the desert as he did in the Gulf War. Indeed, he is reported to have planned urban warfare".
	We are clearly in that position and may have fallen into a trap in the gallop to Baghdad, which has left Basra and other areas under siege. We have not been able to tackle the problems there and will have to return to them later. It is a mistake to believe that taking over Baghdad means that the rest of the country will automatically fall into line with the so-called coalition—which in fact would be better described as a collusion between us and America, with a small involvement from Australia.
	Thirdly, Dilip Hiro states:
	"The key difference between now and the Gulf War is that in 1990–91, the Arab governments had a monopoly over the broadcasting channels and most of the print media."
	There is a considerable extension of Arab media facilities, which matter tremendously because of the attitudes that subsequently develop in the Arab world, the middle east generally and further afield among Islamic groups throughout the world. They perceive a position that reinforces their views about what is occurring.
	The book's fourth point is as follows:
	"To imagine that a people who have suffered grievously at the hands of the United States for twelve years . . . would turn out in thousands to greet American soldiers and their Iraqi cohorts as liberators seems unrealistic."
	America's position in Iraqi eyes is anti-Palestinian and linked to Israel. Whatever the details of those matters and however we would finesse them, that is the understanding of the Iraqi people. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has often played that card. He once even cut off all oil exports from his country to western nations because of Israel's actions, stealing a march on the rest of the Arab world.
	Fifthly, the book states:
	"When a country is attacked, its citizens rally around the leader",
	and that is true however disagreeable the leader is. The Secretary of State for Defence pointed out that 50 per cent. of the Iraqi population had been born during the reign of Saddam Hussein. It is difficult to get a handle on different perceptions in such circumstances.
	Dilip Hiro's sixth point is that
	"Saddam would have no qualms about deploying chemical or biological agents if he possesses them".
	Citing such weapons as a ground for taking action is dubious. Either there is not much there, thus making action unjustifiable, or there is something extremely dangerous there, which is liable to be used in the circumstances that now pertain.
	Seventhly, the book states:
	"The task of locating Saddam and/or his close associations and/or renegade generals will be long and hazardous."
	It will be long and hazardous even if we take over Baghdad because the mopping up in other areas will be a big job.
	The eighth point is that the war will end up diluting and complicating our commitment to pursue our war against terrorism. I believe that any response to terrorism needs to be intelligence-led. We need to be able to draw on the intelligence in the wider world—in areas such as Pakistan, for example—to defend ourselves against potential terrorist activity, rather than giving it a field day as we have done by engaging in the actions that we are currently pursuing.
	The ninth point is:
	"In the economic field, the disruption of oil supplies from the region will hurt the economies of the United States, the European Union and Japan".
	Saddam Hussein has used that weapon on a number of occasions in the past—to advance his position against the Clinton regime, for example.
	The 10th point states:
	"Politically, unlike in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia, there is no Iraqi leadership waiting in the wings to fill the vacuum left by Saddam's overthrow and initiate a democratization process."
	This is something about which we need to have a debate. It is tremendously difficult to see what bits and pieces there are to place together. If Members look in "Europa", which gives information about different nations, they will see that the section on Iraq includes a list of 20 different political groupings that have formed together in six different alliances on different occasions. That probably just touches the surface in terms of what is around and who is attempting to work together. In the Kurdish area, the two main Kurdish groups have often been in battles with each other. Sometimes one will form an alliance against the other using Saddam Hussein; at other times they will use Iran or Turkey. It is not easy to place these elements together.
	The 11th point is that there is a chance of anarchy and the break-up of Iraq. In a debate initiated by the Opposition on 30 January, the Secretary of State for International Development pointed to the potential humanitarian nightmare that could occur if the war took place. The first point that she made in relation to that was the danger of large-scale ethnic fighting breaking out in Iraq. There will be many scores to settle with the old regime and against different groups, and to keep the lid on all that will be quite difficult.
	The 12th point is the danger of the destabilisation of the post-Saddam regime from Iran and Syria, which is presumably why we have already heard threats from the United States in terms of its extending its redevelopment of the middle east by attacking those nations.
	The 13th point involves the problem of Iraqi Kurdistan. The great difficulty is that the Kurds want a nation to be put together that includes the southern sections of Turkey, bits of Syria and areas in Iran, as well as northern Iraq. That is their objective and it could produce great destabilisation in the area.
	The final point is this:
	"If democracy is delivered to Iraqis by the Americans arriving in tanks and helicopter gunships, then the local people and other Arabs will perceive it as a consequence of a defeat inflicted on them by their nemesis, the Israeli-American nexus."
	That is the perception that will exist in the area.
	Those are the massive difficulties and problems that there will be. We need to try to handle them in some way, and to overcome them. We also need to draw these matters together in terms of talking about how on earth we can achieve something democratic in these circumstances in Iraq, and how on earth we can achieve reconstruction and bring decent standards of life to a people who have suffered grievously over many years from the actions of Saddam Hussein and from our reactions to him.

Paul Tyler: I always enjoy participating in these debates, and I can honestly say that I usually go away from them feeling that I have learned a great deal. That is not a familiar experience in all debates in the House, as other Members will testify. Today has been no exception, and I look forward to hearing further contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House.
	I should like to return in a few minutes to the issue of the war and how it is being perceived, and to the issues that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has just touched on about the post-conflict situation, because they are obviously at the top of our minds. I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to think about them before we go into the Easter recess, but this is a particularly good opportunity to consider in more general terms and over a longer time scale the lessons that we need to learn. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for giving us a guide to the contents of the book "Iraq: a Report from the Inside", but for giving us some very clear guidance about the issues that we need to address.
	I was particularly struck by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the need for our response to terrorism to be intelligence led. That is a much wider issue than that of what happens in Iraq over the next few weeks, because it will affect the next few years. Indeed, colleagues might have heard a discussion on the "Today" programme this morning about the difficulties not only of peacemaking but of peacekeeping after hostilities, in which comparisons were made with the Balkans.
	I was also struck by the erudite contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) about the Geneva conventions and, indeed, the other international conventions. I hope that he is right in saying that, as soon as the hostilities are over, the United States Government will be faced with a challenge that what would seem to many of us to involve double standards, in terms of those who are imprisoned in Cuba with very limited rights. I fear, however, that I do not entirely follow him in terms of the problems facing manufacturing industry, not because I do not agree with him that such problems exist—clearly, they do—but because I find it extraordinary that he could deal with them without any reference to the difficulties that manufacturing industry faces in terms of exporting to euroland. Those difficulties have been reduced somewhat by the reduced discrepancy between the currency valuations, but they are still there, and manufacturers in Cornwall are facing a considerable uphill struggle, in common with agriculture, fishing and the tourist industry.
	I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the way in which we deal with very detailed issues of tax law. I served on the Standing Committee for a Finance Bill one year and, frankly it was a terrible experience for me—not just because I was so ignorant but because I felt no wiser by the end of it. I did not feel that, collectively, we had done a good job, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right to have concerns about those matters.
	I take issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about the reform of the House of Lords, which I thought were extraordinarily timid. I assume that he was a member of the party that signed up to a manifesto that wished to make the second Chamber more effective and democratic. Frankly, it is not going to go that way if the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister are allowed to dominate the further discussion. I do not think that I would be breaking any confidences of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform if I said that, so far as I am aware, the hon. and learned Gentleman's view is not accepted or endorsed by anybody on that Committee from either House or any party. We must move on, for the very good reason that was often articulated here on a Thursday afternoon by the former Leader of the House, which is that good government depends on good parliamentary scrutiny. We are clearly not getting that, collectively, from the two Houses of Parliament working together. It is not a question of one House challenging the other. It is a question of both Houses working together to make Parliament more effective. I was particularly disappointed that a former Minister and a thoughtful Member of the House should take such a pessimistic, defeatist view.
	I intervened on the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the surfacing of the A30 and I entirely agree with her. Of course, that is not the only section of the A30 that suffers from so-called whisper concrete. We also have it to the west of Exeter, around Oakhampton. I use that road twice a week on my way to and from Exeter station when I come to the House. I entirely endorse her view that, collectively, we should—I was going to say blackmail, but that would be an improper word to use—at least persuade the contractors to bring forward the dates for the improvement of that service. I am sure that she is right.
	I return to the hon. Lady's point about the lessons of Afghanistan and, in particular, the role of the media. Recently, we have heard many quotations, some of them misquotations, from Aeschylus, who, I gather, wrote in the 5th century BC. He said:
	"In war, Truth is the first casualty".
	That, apparently, is the proper way to render that statement. This morning, I heard—frankly, with incredulity and dismay—the Home Secretary's comments on media coverage of the Iraq hostilities, which, significantly, were made in the United States rather than here. There seems to be an implication in what he said that western journalists, particularly in Baghdad, are the stooges of Saddam's media managers; that was echoed a couple of hours ago when a Conservative Member attacked the BBC on similar grounds following the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.
	Members may also have heard on this morning's "Today" programme a robust and persuasive defence of the integrity of those journalists by Robert Graham of the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard. Those journalists are incredibly courageous—they are taking their lives in their hands in Baghdad, and they are managing to report the situation as they see it in the most dangerous and difficult conditions.
	Long ago, in one of my many failed previous careers, I was a journalist. I would not have dreamt of accepting an assignment to Baghdad in the current circumstances. We should be saluting the courage of those journalists, not in any way decrying their commitment to good journalism. Indeed, several highly respected journalists have already lost their lives in Iraq, so I find it difficult to accept the criticisms that have been made.
	What did the Home Secretary say? He said:
	"For the first time in our history we not only have thousands of journalists with our troops but we have broadcast media behind what we would describe as enemy lines, reporting blow-by-blow what is happening."
	In fact, as the BBC has noted, there are not thousands of journalists involved, but hundreds, as well as an estimated 250 press officers with coalition forces, so that is a bit of a worry to start with. Of course, there were also reporters in Baghdad in the 1991 conflict, giving blow-by-blow accounts.
	It does not help that the Home Secretary, while complaining about spin, appears to be spinning himself. None of us can trust anything that the Saddam regime tells us. We know that, and most of the Arab world knows it. It also knows that his media machine is very suspect. Perhaps even more significant than the Home Secretary's comments on the messengers and their message is the fact that the al-Jazeera network has suspended broadcasts from Iraq today. Why? Because its editor refused to continue to broadcast after the Saddam regime expelled two of his journalists. We should recognise that, rather than simply make attacks.
	As our troops are putting their lives on the line to create a more open, more democratic and free Iraq, I believe that they are entitled to expect higher standards from western politicians than the world has seen from Saddam. Our public are entitled to that as well. For example, we still do not know whether there was a substantial public uprising in Basra. The media teams on our side suggested at the time that there was and that it had been ruthlessly put down. Surely we should know by now. If we do know, we and the public are entitled to hear about it. Similarly, we were told by the US and UK authorities that a chemical warfare factory had been discovered, but everything then went quiet. Was there one or was there not? Have the media been told to shut up or was the claim, by any chance, an overexcited bit of spin—a false report?
	We should bear it mind that our own Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have repeatedly emphasised disarmament and the so-called weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for our participation in the war, and that Ministers here have refused to accept the Bush doctrine of regime change as sufficient justification. The media have yet to tell us whether stocks of any such weapons have been found. Given the proportion of the Iraqi land mass that has been liberated, one would expect some evidence to have been discovered.
	Of course, I accept that even very small amounts of biological or chemical ingredients could be absolutely devastating, although I accept also that those would not be easy to find, but one would have expected some disclosure or some hints by now. If the US intelligence services knew where they were stored, surely they would have tipped off the UN inspectorate years ago.
	Reference was made to that issue during the exchanges earlier between the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). There is at least a mystery here. I do not think it sufficient just to refer to protective equipment, because that in itself does not prove the existence of an horrendous arsenal, which is what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers told us was there. Is something being kept from us? The media have a role to play in trying to establish that, and we should not simply accept assurances from our own press and spin doctors.
	There was also the curious incident, which, as I saw it, went largely unreported, of the camp found in northern Iraq that belonged to a group linked to al-Qaeda. That group, however, was specifically anti-Saddam, which suggests that it and its links to al-Qaeda were not sufficient justification for the war. If anything, they were to the contrary.
	By contrast with the complaints made by the Home Secretary in the US last night, my main complaint about the media involves excessive intrusion and excessive coverage. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton: there have been too many obsessively close-up and graphic reports of action and fatalities for my taste. Certainly, there have been unpleasant examples of "doorstepping" of the wives, parents or families of those who have lost their lives on our behalf, almost as soon as they have been officially informed of the loss of life. I find that very difficult to take.
	Also, I find it hard to believe that the extraordinary scale and tone of the coverage is necessary, desirable or helpful to the families who are directly involved. In the first few days of the hostilities, taking a cue from the American media, there was a tendency to make it all look like a computer game—a casualty-free, remote, electronic playground—which could keep everybody cheerfully gung-ho for a few days before normality was restored. Tragically, we have all learned that no wars are like that, and certainly this war is not like that. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to another aspect of what has been happening: so much detail is given that assistance could be given to the enemy forces and their intelligence services.
	I also find the falsification of photographs difficult to take. An example of that was given in the media this morning after a photographer had clearly falsified a photograph, obviously with the intention of making it more dramatic. Even now, the paper mills are struggling to produce enough newsprint to supply the apparently insatiable and ghoulish appetite of the editors. I wonder who reads and watches all this. Who manages to watch the interminable TV punditry?
	What about the compulsory spin? It is surely significant that every single one of Rupert Murdoch's more than 100 newspaper editors all over the world vigorously supported the American justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, whether the local population were doubtful, enthusiastic or antagonistic to hostilities. What an amazing coincidence.
	I have been a working journalist, and I know many print and broadcast journalists who share those concerns, but their anxieties seem to have been overruled by the decision makers at the top. It is as if the media moguls had invested so much in the operation that they were determined to legitimise it and then to extract their full money's worth from it. I consider both aims deplorable.
	We need not subscribe to the suspicion of conspiracy, so dreadfully fuelled by the notorious Jo Moore e-mail of 11 September, to worry about what is happening behind the scenes. The fog of war lies low over domestic politics too, as was revealed this morning by the results of an excellent survey reported in The Independent.
	The Minister may laugh, but I do not think this is funny, and I do not think viewers and readers find it funny. They expect high standards of journalism from Britain. That is one reason, no doubt, why the Minister would accept that we must defeat the dictatorial attitude of the Saddam regime.

Rob Marris: I too read the survey results in The Independent, which is my newspaper of choice. I reflected deeply, and it struck me that we have two options. I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree or disagree. In my opinion, either we suspend the domestic agenda or we continue it, taking due note of the fact that the most important item on it is the fact that our troops are fighting overseas. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should suspend the domestic agenda or not? If he thinks we should not suspend it, let me say that I suspect that some of his hon. Friends would criticise the Government if announcements were delayed, for instance, and would suggest that the Government were burying information by not releasing it.

Paul Tyler: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not think he was listening very carefully to what I was saying. My criticism is this: we seem to have lost the balance in the media, and I think the Government have taken advantage of it. That is not just a criticism of the Government; I am criticising editorial balance. I think the distinction is important.
	For everyone's sake—for the sake of our troops, the people of Iraq, those in the wider middle east and indeed the international community—we must simply hope and pray that the war is over soon. But that is also a good reason for trying to be sure that we return to a world in which the media take responsibility for balance—a balance that I believe is desperately needed at the moment.

David Winnick: I apologise for the fact that I must leave relatively early. I hope I shall be forgiven. Normally I would be present for most of the debate, but I am attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
	I agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) about manufacturing industry. He and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), know only too well what happened in the 1980s and early 1990s, when two major recessions caused so much harm to the black country manufacturing industry. We still experience many problems, but I believe that the situation has greatly improved.
	I want to concentrate on the military conflict. I agreed with some of what was said by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about journalists. It is important to recognise their right to report. I do not agree with some of what they say—I am thinking particularly of one or two who have reported from Baghdad—but they have every right to put their views in a free and democratic country. I refer, of course, to the country to which they report.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of journalists have already died in the last fortnight. We recognise their courage in reporting the war, and note that we are better informed as a result of their journalism. I certainly do not agree with those who engage in journalist-baiting.
	As was mentioned during questions on the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, today's newspapers contain interviews with a group of western journalists who had been held in a Baghdad prison on suspicion of spying. When released, they gave information about what had happened in the prison. One, a British journalist employed by the American newspaper Newsday, said
	"There were beatings and torture going on outside our cells, in the corridor".
	According to this report, the journalist
	"described hearing the screams of other prisoners"
	—not journalists; Iraqis, obviously—
	"being tortured and saw some with eyes and faces bloodied and swollen."
	He said:
	"Other inmates hobbled round, apparently because the soles of their feet had been burned or otherwise injured."
	That illustrates what has been going on in the country under Saddam's tyranny. We should have no illusions on that score.
	I shall deal with the subject of post-Saddam Iraq shortly. Let me say first, however, that there would have been no discussion about what would happen in a post-Saddam Iraq if military action had not been taken. If we had listened to the critics—if we had heeded their advice that action should not be taken, however strongly we believed that the regime was holding weapons of mass destruction—Saddam's rule would have continued indefinitely. Even if he had gone in time, presumably one of his sons, no less a murderous thug, would have taken over. Critics argue, rightly in my view, that a major United Nations role will be needed once the fighting has ceased. Fine; but that would not be part of the scenario, or part of our discussion, had the United States and Britain not taken this action.
	I believe that virtually every Member—I wish I could say "every Member"—wishes the coalition every possible success: wishes it victory. Yes, it would be nice to say "everyone", but I think everyone present understands why I cannot quite say that. I shall make no further comment about that; I think that the point has been taken. However, it is important to convey to people in Iraq—this is really why I am making this speech—that a permanent foreign occupation is not intended.
	It is true that the Iraqi people have not so far come out to greet the soldiers, and why should they? They do not know the outcome, and they have lived for so long under terror and tyranny. As I said before the war began, though, I believe that the vast majority want to get rid of Saddam. What they do not want in any circumstances is permanent occupation of their country, particularly—this may seem derogatory in religious terms—by infidels. We would, I think, make a huge blunder if having achieved the military victory that is so essential, we proceeded to a long period of occupation. That would undermine what we are doing, to some extent. It would not, of course, undermine the freeing of the country from tyranny, but it would confirm the suspicion of people in many countries—not least those in the Islamic world—who do not accept our integrity, and do not believe that we are doing what we are doing for the reason we have given.
	We need to clarify our position and, to a large extent, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so at yesterday's Question Time. It is disturbing, as I said to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to read reports that the United States intends to put in a retired general as governor and that the role of the UN will be minimised or confined simply to humanitarian aid. I make the point as strongly as I can that before elections take place—we all agree that there must be an interim period—the governance of the country should be through the United Nations. That is absolutely essential and it must involve those from Muslim countries.
	If there is suspicion, concern and anxiety—not among extremists of the Muslim world who have their own agenda, but among other people who are far from extremists—it is because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has poisoned the atmosphere. As I said in a previous debate, virtually every hon. Member accepts the existence of Israel for reasons that we understand, but it should be an Israel with the 1967 borders. We must also accept the fact that for 55 years the Palestinians have had a raw deal. They have not been accorded dignity or experienced the economic possibilities that they should have had, and so many of them live in wretched refugee camps. The leadership of the western countries must have an understanding of the plight of the Palestinians, of what they have suffered and of why they feel so bitter and humiliated.
	All the faults should not be attributed to Israeli action in 1967. I do not accept that. I was a Member of Parliament in 1967 and I said then that Israel had a perfect right to defend itself and not be destroyed. Since then, however, the Israelis have behaved in a manner that is totally wrong: it cannot be justified; it is inexcusable. Unfortunately, Israel has the likes of Sharon and others who are political and religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalism is not confined to the Muslim world: there are Christian fundamentalists and there are certainly religious fundamentalists in Israel who argue that because of what God is said to have promised in the Bible, they have the right to all the occupied territories. Of course they do not describe it as such: they talk of Judaea and Samaria.
	I welcome the fact that, at long last, a United States President has said that he is in favour, in principle, of a Palestinian state, but he has to demonstrate—more than Britain does—that he will put sufficient pressure on Israel to accept that a sovereign and viable Palestinian state should come into existence alongside Israel. If that happens in the next few years, it would be a great blessing not only for the Palestinians, but for Israelis and the whole international community. The absolute poison of that continued conflict would finally have come to an end.

Bob Spink: I am sorry to see that so many of the usual suspects are not in their places today. I wonder why not. Perhaps they are a little afraid, have lost their nerve and do not want to turn up to face the music. We should remember Labour's battle cry that things can only get better—a discordant tune that now rings hollow to all my constituents.
	Public services are much worse under Labour. Let us examine the facts. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) is laughing, but my constituents, who have to pay massive council tax bills this year, are not laughing. Local and national taxes have increased massively, whereas street crime, congestion, public transport and hospital waiting lists are all worse than ever. Our local post offices, chemists and the police stations in Castle Point are all under threat from Government policies. Our roads are grinding to a halt and our rail services have become much worse than they ever were. The Government have clearly lost their way.
	We must make the Government start to listen to the people again, and the best way to do that is through the local poll booths on 1 May, in about four weeks' time. Our policies are much more relevant to people's needs because we have listened to the people. We learned our lesson—it was tough, but we learned. I am a good example of the Conservative party bouncing back and taking seats from Labour—and we shall take many council seats on 1 May.
	Let me go through one or two Tory policies that are relevant to people's needs just now. For instance, we shall deliver more police patrols: 40,000 extra police will patrol our streets to make our communities safer and to deliver the streets back to the people who pay for them and deserve them. We shall pay for that by stopping the massive asylum payouts. I think that our constituents would welcome that.
	The Tories will deliver better local services. The people in Castle Point quite rightly compare Southend's Tory-controlled council with their own Labour-controlled council. The Tory-controlled council delivers far better services, at an average cost to people of £400 per year less than Labour-controlled Castle Point. Is it any wonder that this Labour Government branded Labour-controlled Castle Point borough council as failing? Let us see what the people in Castle Point have to say about that on 1 May.
	I shall read part of a letter from two of my constituents, Pat and Ken, whom I shall call Mr. and Mrs. W. On 23 March, they wrote:
	"Commencing April, my pension, and that of my wife Pat, will increase by £13 per month for the two of us. Our Council Tax will increase by £18 a month from the same period. We will, therefore, be £5 a month worse off because of these totally unjustified increases. So much for the 'caring' Gordon Brown."
	My correspondents go on to wonder whether the Chancellor would like to tell them why they should be grateful that he is looking after them so well.
	Clearly, my constituents understand what Labour is about. They know that the council tax is yet another Government stealth tax. They know that the council tax increase has very little to do with Essex county council or the local borough council, but that it is to do with the shift of Government grants from the south-east up to the Labour heartlands. My constituents will not be putting up with that for very much longer.

John Bercow: The truth of what my hon. Friend has just said about the redistribution of resources is powerfully underlined in my own area. Is he aware that in Buckinghamshire, 7.5 per cent. of the projected 14.8 per cent. rise in council tax is exclusively attributable to Government theft from our area to prop up and subsidise their profligate friends in the north?

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my argument and driving it forward. People up and down the country will be able to make their views known to the Government on 1 May.
	Local pharmacies are part of the primary health care service. They are not just retailers; they are professional health care deliverers, and part of the very fabric of our society and communities. They take a great burden off GPs and, if regulations were relaxed just a little further, they could do even more—and they should be able to. We should celebrate and support them, rather than threatening them, which is what the Office of Fair Trading is doing with its control of entry regulation recommendation. I call on the Government to reject that recommendation, as it would damage pharmacies and set back the pharmacy service by 10 years.
	The OFT recommendation would damage most the more vulnerable people in society. I am talking about people with mobility difficulties, young mothers with children and pushchairs, elderly people, people who do not have two cars, and disabled people—it is they who would suffer most. I therefore call on the Government to think carefully about the matter and introduce policies that would use pharmacies more, not put them under greater threat. I congratulate The Evening Echo, Yellow Advertiser and Island Times in Essex on backing local petitioners and chemists by drawing public attention to this important matter.
	Last week, the Home Office Minister with responsibility for prisons visited Castle Point to look at the ongoing problems of youth nuisance. He walked around the Roseberry walk area, where traders regularly suffer from the antics of vandals and hooligans. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have raised that matter on the Floor of the House many times, and you will be surprised to learn that the Minister was discourteous to me: he did not even bother to drop me a note to let me know that he was going to my constituency—I had to read about it afterwards. That is a flagrant breach of the conventions of the House. It shows the Government's contempt and arrogance in stopping listening and in not treating this House with the respect that it rightly deserves by giving us the power properly to hold the Government to account and to represent our constituents' interests.
	I have news for the Home Office Minister. It is his Government who are the architects of the burgeoning street crime, because, in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, they took away from the police the power to remove from young people on the streets and in public places unopened cans and bottles of alcohol. It means that, if a police officer finds a group of nine or 13-year-olds on the street with a six-pack of extra-strength lager, of which they have drunk three quarters of the contents of one can and not opened the other five, the police will remove the quarter-full open can and say, "Now go away and drink those other five cans somewhere else." What total nonsense. The Government have now made a humiliating U-turn and a complete climbdown by reinstating in the Licensing Bill—they could not even do it in a proper criminal justice Bill—the police's power to remove the unopened cans that my private Member's Bill gave them in 1997. I am glad that I have been able to put that matter on the record again.
	The Government said in their manifesto that they would support the post office network, yet they recently announced that they expect 3,000 more post offices to close over the next few years. That is not supporting the post office network, but damaging the fabric of our community. They have also changed, in a disagreeable way, the method by which benefits and pensions are paid. That causes distress and harm to people, especially disabled people who cannot go to the post office themselves to draw their pension. Such people may use different people each week to do it for them, and cannot be spreading their PIN numbers around liberally. I ask the Government to consider that problem.
	I also ask the Government to consider the universal bank account, which is very user-unfriendly. People with universal bank accounts are often the poorer people in our society, who could best take advantage of the significant discounts that utilities offer for setting up direct debits and standing orders, yet the universal bank account denies them the right to have a standing order or a direct debit. What utter nonsense. The universal bank account should be improved so that people can use it properly and benefit from it.
	The Government are presiding over a progressive attack on our local village centres and community shopping centres in rural and urban areas. They are ripping out the heart of our community.
	I turn to the war in Iraq. Some of my constituents support the Government's action and some are very much against it. I do not know which judgment will prevail, but I do know that, in a democracy, we must listen to all views carefully and take them into account. I believe that if, by taking action, we can on balance save lives, we should support a leadership that has the moral courage to take that action. That is why I support the Prime Minister and support our troops in Iraq.
	Humanitarian aid is very important. The oil-for-food programme under United Nations resolution 986 has not worked terribly well and a lot of money is bottled up in it. Once the conflict is over, we shall have to release that money for real projects, such as hospitals and schools in Iraq. We shall also have to ensure that aid—especially food aid and medical aid—flows freely during and immediately after the conflict. We must never underestimate Saddam Hussein's ability to deceive and manipulate. His trickery is boundless and the depth of his evil and depravity is without parallel, as my constituent Jock Hall keeps telling me. He has, and will again in future if he gets—

Desmond Swayne: Jock Hall?

Bob Spink: Jock Hall is an engineer who has worked in the region and who knows the depths to which Saddam will go and how he manipulates situations. He is deeply concerned that Saddam might remove the chlorine plants that make the water safe, thus poisoning his own people; or even put lures on hospitals, schools or religious monuments to try to make our attacking forces mistakenly destroy those institutions so that he can drive a wedge between the coalition forces and the other Arab nations. I am sure that our forces are well aware of that kind of trickery—I know that the Minister is. We must be very careful about Saddam Hussein.
	We must also be careful to resist a Turkish incursion in the north of Iraq, which would be very destabilising and damaging. I congratulate the Kurds on setting up what is in fact a parliamentary democracy with power sharing between the two main groups. That has removed the traditional conflict between those groups. The Parliament has been able to be set up because of the no-fly zone. It is a wonderful institution and I spoke in it myself about four weeks ago. It was a great opportunity to witness a democracy growing and getting stronger in that region. It could be a model for the rest of the middle east, if we can feed, fertilise and nurture it. For instance, that Parliament has proportionately many more women than ours. Some of them are feisty women and very eloquent speakers, who were doing a tremendous job.
	I welcome what the Kurds have achieved. In a post-war Iraq, the new administration should flow from the Iraqi people themselves. We cannot impose it on them, but we must facilitate, encourage, advise and help them in developing good plans—the Iraqi opposition forces already have well-developed structures. In December, there was a conference on the issue in London, and about a month ago there was another conference at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. The opposition parties are co-operating. Of course, there will be a single federal state of Iraq, which will look after foreign affairs and defence. It will take all the oil revenues from the whole country, whatever the region, and then redistribute them equitably in a way that I am sure they will be able to agree on. The state will be based on a parliamentary representative democracy. Within the state there will be regional governments, one of which should be a Kurdish regional government. The Kurds accept that they will not get a separate state now, and that they will not be able to interfere with Kurdish minorities in Syria, Iran or Turkey. They are happy to accept a regional Kurdish government in Iraq as part of the federal Iraqi state. That is what they are unanimously asking for, and I welcome that very much. None the less, we must not take our eye off the Israel-Palestine problem; we must address that with great energy as soon as possible.
	God speed and protect all our forces who are fighting out there. They have shown great courage, dignity and determination, and tremendous, characteristically British professionalism in executing their duties as servicemen and women.
	Finally, I turn to questions about the federal state of Europe into which the Labour Administration are attempting to lead us. I invite the Minister to kill any last hope that Labour may have entertained that there will be a common European foreign and defence structure. Iraq has shown what nonsense that would be and how dangerous it would be.
	Will the Minister give a commitment that we will withdraw from the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, both of which have been expensive failures, increasingly so during the past decade? I have called for such a commitment on other occasions, so the Minister should not look so incredulous.
	Will the Minister denounce further tax harmonisation, which would destroy our competitiveness? That is why Europe wants tax harmonisation. Will he stop the ever-burgeoning burden of EU regulations that swamp us? Will he set up a serious programme to remove those unnecessary and inappropriate regulations?

Rob Marris: May I take the hon. Gentleman back a few sentences? He seemed to be taking a position that surprises me, although it would not be surprising if it came from the Labour Benches. He said that the EU wanted to destroy the United Kingdom's tax system because it was competitive. Is his position that we have a competitive tax system?

Bob Spink: It certainly is not. Our tax system could be much better—but it could also be much worse, and Europe would make it much worse. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to clarify that point.
	I was about to draw the attention of the House to one of the stupid regulations or directives that Europe comes up with. The EU wants to reclassify Canvey Island, which clearly is—as it has always been—an island, as mainland. The people who live on Canvey Island think that is complete nonsense and wonder what it has to do with Europe. That directive must come from the same drawer as those on straight bananas and lawnmower noise, but I shall move rapidly on.
	Does the Minister accept that, for the foreseeable future, the single currency would be economically damaging and constitutionally and democratically disastrous for the UK? There is no question about that. Furthermore, will he get Mr. Kinnock removed as the EU's corruption tsar? Will the Government consider withholding Britain's contributions until corruption and waste are tackled seriously? That is clearly not happening at present.
	My constituents are sick of having to pay the European Union a net contribution of £30 billion a year for membership of a club whose only beneficiary is the Prime Minister—as he believes. The right hon. Gentleman has designs for himself in Europe in the future.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case against European federalism in front of a prominent federast member of the Government. Given that there is to be an emerging constitution for the continent, under the terms of the Convention on the Future of Europe, does my hon. Friend agree that it is an urgent priority for Britain to make representations for a dramatic improvement in the principle of subsidiarity? Under the present protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam on the subject, no European directive or regulation that is damaging to this country has been repealed.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point about the European constitution. I was about to move on to that. The House should hold a full-day debate on that matter, which is just as serious for this country as the single currency. It will be just as dangerous for us to take that route and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point so eloquently.
	On the net contribution that we have to make to Europe, let me set out some of the figures so that there can be no confusion. In 2000, Britain's contribution to the EU was £10.719 billion and the abatement was £2.084 billion, so our gross contribution to the EU was £8.635 billion. Britain's receipts from the EU included £2.916 billion in agricultural support, and regional and social support amounting to £1.865 billion, so Britain's net contribution to the EU in 2000 was £3.854 billion.
	I further believe that we would be better placed to protect and create jobs without the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, single currency, tax harmonisation and those regulations, so this is a plea for Britain to return to the simple and effective single market trading relationship and sensible co-operation, which we all thought we were supporting and voting for in 1972, 1974 and at other times.
	3.56 pm

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I should like to raise a number of issues on behalf of my constituents, the first of which concerns my constituent, Mr. Maajid Nawaz. That gentleman has been awaiting trial in Egypt since 1 April 2002. I and others attended a peaceful vigil on 1 April, this week, to mark the anniversary of the fact that Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett, Reza Pankhurst and 23 other people are waiting for their trials to continue in Egypt. Those people have been accused of offences relating to the membership of the Islamic Liberation party.
	The Minister will probably recall that I have raised the case involving that gentleman before, but the reason why I am raising it again is that I am working very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) because we are all affected, with our constituents, by this issue.
	I am particularly concerned about the Egyptian ambassador's response to our request to meet him, which I would have thought perfectly proper, following the meeting that we had with Baroness Amos. He wrote back just two weeks ago, saying:
	"Reference to the letter . . . co-signed by a number of Members of Parliament, including yourself, regarding the case of the British men detained in Egypt on charges of affiliation to the banned Liberation party, and further to our previous correspondence in that matter;
	I would like to underline the fact that the case currently lies in the hands of the relevant judicial authorities in Egypt, and that there is no possible way the Embassy, or any other entity, could interfere to influence its development or outcome.
	Let me reassure you that the case will be handled with the fairness and impartiality our judicial system is renowned for.
	I will be happy to continue sharing with you any relevant information we receive from the authorities in Egypt regarding the development of the case."
	But of course, in a cleverly drafted letter, the ambassador did not agree to meet four Members of Parliament, one of whom happens to be a Minister. We have protested about that sorry state of affairs, and I understand that Baroness Amos will shortly have a meeting with the ambassador, after which, I hope, he will rethink his inability to be more forthcoming and have a meeting with us. Clearly, we are not going to discuss the flower arrangements in his office or the state of the wallpaper. We will discuss our concerns about the issue. It would be very regrettable for the ambassador to refuse to meet us.
	The situation has continued for more than a year. The trial was due to continue yesterday but, yet again, was adjourned, until 19 April. Many of the relatives and loved ones take the view that the judicial process in Egypt is, in itself, designed to be a punishment. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary was a Foreign Office Minister, I ask him to use his best endeavours to ensure that the meeting takes place.
	I was going to dwell on the council tax, but my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) did that for me by saying what a wonderful council Southend was. He highlighted the financial arrangements there and compared them with those in the Labour authority in his constituency. I shall miss out that part of my speech.
	I want to share with the House the position concerning Southend airport and, in particular, St. Lawrence church. It is another issue that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard me mention, but he will understand its importance. Last night, the council considered the airport's planning application. I am delighted to tell the House that the council unanimously rejected the application.
	I say "unanimously", but I notice that one Liberal Democrat Member is present. This point is not directed at the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), but perhaps he will pass it on to his colleagues. The leader of the Liberal group on Southend council was unfortunately excluded from the meeting because he was considered to have predetermined the application in his public statements. He had talked about the issue even though the new Government requirements for planning applications mean that one is not supposed to talk about such issues publicly. It has been suggested that he spoke about the issue for the purpose of electoral gain on 1 May. However, he was unable to take part in the debate and to represent the people who voted for him.
	The council has nevertheless rejected the application. St. Lawrence church is 1,000 years old and we were first told that it would be moved. It would be a complicated and expensive process to put a 1,000-year-old church on to wheels and move it a few hundred yards. A little later the word "demolished" was said to be among the issues that the council was considering, but we were eventually told that the church would be rebuilt. Whatever the circumstances, the council has decided that the church will not be moved. I salute the council, and I have been inundated with thousands of representations from not just local residents but from people throughout the country. People have loved ones buried by the church and others have moved to Southend for various reasons. They were very upset by the application.
	I do not know, at this early stage, whether the airport owner intends to appeal against the council's decision. If an appeal is made, it will go before the Deputy Prime Minister. No one in Southend wants the airport to close. The problem started because the safety organisation that is responsible for airports in this country decided that the church was too near the take-off point for aeroplanes. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pass the issue on quietly to the Deputy Prime Minister. As I said, local residents do not want the airport to close.

Adrian Flook: I have been listening closely to my hon. Friend's contribution. He has mentioned the Liberal Democrats in Southend, and particularly the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Will he tell the House which way the Liberal Democrat leader might have been inclined to vote had he been at the committee meeting where he was not allowed to be?

David Amess: I suspect that he had not been anticipating that the matter would come before the council before the local elections. I anticipate that because all the other councils were keeping their mouths shut, there would have been a whisper during the election campaign that the Conservatives were in favour of St. Lawrence church being demolished. Of course, he has been caught out.

John Bercow: Far be it from me to diminish or trivialise the significance of the important point that my hon. Friend has just made. May I put it to my hon. Friend through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that serious though it is if a Liberal Democrat councillor gets caught out, the House should be conscious that in some areas, including the Aylesbury Vale district council area, the Liberals appear to have failed even to find candidates to contest seats in a matter of a week's time?

David Amess: I am being tempted in this season of good will as we move to the Easter recess to go in for Liberal bashing. Much as my hon. Friends tempt me, I am content for Hansard to be the true record of the points that we have shared. I hope that the Minister, in spite of what he has heard already, with which I entirely agree, will have a word with the Civil Aviation Authority to reconsider its decision in as much as St. Lawrence church will stay where it is. At the same time, we still want Southend airport to operate.
	I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point pinched my speech, but he mentioned pharmacists. My next two points are about pharmacists and post offices. Almost every Member is now rising at the end of our proceedings to present petitions on these two issues, and I am no exception in that. The petition that I have presented talks about the Office of Fair Trading having recommended the Government proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions. It tells its customers that these proposals, if accepted, would mean that many local pharmacists would struggle to survive and that the services that pharmacies currently offer would be at risk. Worse still, they might go out of business.
	Pharmacists point out also that instead of prescriptions being a walk away as they may be now, often local residents would have to get their prescriptions dispensed at a supermarket pharmacy at an out-of-town shopping centre.
	I am a member of the Health Select Committee. I suppose that this is a jibe at the Minister, but the new arrangements for the times that we sit and conduct ourselves in the House are clearly not working. They are an absolute disaster. I know that the Minister is one of the greatest enthusiasts of the new arrangements, but I must tell him that many of his hon. Friends who called themselves modernisers are quietly saying, "What a disaster this is. Can we do something about it?" By stealth, we are already doing something about it on Wednesdays because we certainly no longer sit until 7 pm. However, we need to do something about sitting times on Tuesdays.
	This morning, I was chairing a Standing Committee. At the same time, I wanted to be present at the Health Select Committee, which was taking evidence on the Office of Fair Trading report into the control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the United Kingdom. To me, that was an important matter. There were expert witnesses from the OFT and independent pharmacists. There was even a representative of ASDA. Given the new sitting arrangements, it is impossible for me to chair a Standing Committee and attend a meeting of the Health Select Committee to do the job that I very much want to do. I enjoy being on the Health Select Committee.
	There are many other examples of modernisation not working. It is not a case of Members of Parliament being lazy—it is simply that the new arrangements mean, particularly for the Opposition, who are depleted in numbers, that we are unable to fulfil our duties, serve on Committee or attend meetings. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will tell us whether there are any plans for the House to have another vote on the matter. I know that the issue is sensitive because the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was keen on the proposals, is no longer Leader of the House. However, I assure the Minister that many of his colleagues believe that the changes have been a disaster.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister should consider bringing forward the review of our hours from the end of the Parliament to the end of this Session because many Members are starting to demand that?

David Amess: I am told that the only way that we can get the Government to have a rethink is to get an early-day motion signed by Members of Parliament who were in favour of the changes but are not any more. I do not know how brave and bold these modernising Members of Parliament are, but I hope that the Minister will take seriously the examples that I have just shared with the House which demonstrate that there is a frequent clash in our duties.
	As for local pharmacists, the Government, we are told, intend to respond or give us an idea of what they will do in July, but the issue is causing great upset, particularly to my constituents. Out of 659 constituencies, my constituency ranks 30th in the number of senior citizens. I go to 100th birthday celebrations practically every day, and one lady in my constituency who is nearly 110 lives in her bungalow on her own. If you want a long life come and live in Southend. The local pharmacist is fundamental to my senior citizens' way of life. In the same breath, I want to express concern about what is happening to our post offices. Hon. Members will have been invited to a reception this afternoon organised by the Communication Workers Union, who have told us:
	"the Government has taken the decision to pay pension and benefit payments directly into bank accounts rather than recipients collecting cash at the Post Office. The consequences of the public moving over to the Banking system and transacting their business elsewhere could result in up to 40 per cent. of Post Office business"—
	a huge amount—
	"being lost. This in turn could have serious consequences for our members' jobs and livelihoods. However it is still possible for benefit and pension recipients to collect their cash at the Post Office via the Post Office Card Account."
	The union therefore launched its "Banking on You" campaign today.
	I represent an urban area and am disturbed by what is happening to our post offices. According to the House of Commons Library, there are 19 urban post offices in my constituency. I have already received letters telling me that three of them are going to close. I know that this is a modernising Government, but I am sick to death of the term "modernising". I represent an awful lot of senior citizens, and they do not really want to be modernised—they like toddling down to the post office, having a conversation and collecting their money. The Government may say, "For goodness' sake, the last thing that you want to do is carry cash around with you," but that is a condemnation of their policies on law and order. There is no doubt that the closure of urban post offices is worrying a huge number of our constituents, and I hope that the Government will rethink the issue.
	My next point relates to single-handed GPs. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to present a petition on the matter. Our local newspaper, the Leigh Times, recently published a comment column headed, "GP vacancies is dismal news for Southend". It stated that
	"a recent British Medical Association (BMA) survey showed that 10.42 per cent. of the GP vacancies in Southend had been vacant for three months . . . In only five other areas was the vacancy rates higher."
	I have already shared with the House the fact that I represent a huge number of senior citizens. The newspaper comment continued:
	"The survey showed, though, that vacancy rates among British GPs are rapidly increasing—which means that the remaining GPs are struggling to cope with the needs of well over a million extra patients."
	Whether the Government like it or not, there is a huge issue concerning the recruitment of general practitioners.
	I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) had an exchange with the Prime Minister on 3 July last year, in which the Prime Minister said:
	"There has been a move over time away from single-handed practices so as to improve the quality of care that people receive."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 219.]
	That was deeply insulting to single-handed GPs, many of whom are doing a magnificent job on behalf of our constituents. But what a crazy thing to have done, when more than 10 per cent. of the GP vacancies in Southend have been vacant for more than three months. Again, I hope the Minister will pass that on.
	The House will be relieved to know that I have only two final points to gabble through. I have been inundated recently with letters from constituents about their financial affairs. They are not writing to tell me that they have so much money that they would like to give me some of it. They are writing to tell me that their investments are not giving them a wonderful return. A couple who invested with Aberdeen Asset Managers Ltd., said that when the company claimed that the returns were so high, they would normally have been suspicious and not touched the organisation with a barge pole. They go on to say:
	"However, at the time Aberdeen were considered to be one of the most reputable of the Investment Management Companies."
	I will not tell the House how much money was involved, but they have lost the lot through bad advice.
	Then there is the dreadful situation of Equitable Life, which so many hon. Members have mentioned in the House. I have one pensioner who writes:
	"I am an Equitable Life pensioner and am horrified at the way the affairs of this society have been handled over the years, with the result that my pension is continually decreasing."
	The very helpful Treasury Minister wrote back to me immediately—I was pleased with the advice—telling me that Lord Penrose was conducting an inquiry into the matter. However, that is taking too long. It seems to be kicked into the long grass. All my constituents, like myself, are on life's journey. They are getting older and they need the support now.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. Does he agree that the Government could give tremendous help to all his constituents and old people around the country if they withdrew their pernicious advance corporation tax burden on pensions, which is costing pensions £5 billion a year every year? That is a major factor in the problem that he describes.

David Amess: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
	My final point relates to the death of one of my relatives. I do not remember whether the Minister had his present job when I raised the matter before. Members of Parliament continually—although, we hope, not too often—receive complaints from constituents when a relative or a loved one dies. Their reaction may be that perhaps it was not the fault of the doctors or the hospital, as the care was wonderful. They have to go through the grieving process, and we have to give them reassurance and go through the Government's requirements for dealing with complaints. I am not making any complaints about the way in which such matters are dealt with in Southend.
	The issue that I wish to raise concerns an aunt, Miss Kitty Martin. Although she has been dead for what must be almost three years, I am still trying to get some justice. I speak as a Member of Parliament who was involved in her health care from start to finish, via the hospital in Redbridge. The treatment was completely inadequate and the situation was disgraceful. She was in a mixed ward and was given electric shock treatment and prescribed drugs without permission. When I saw at a conference one of the consultants involved, he said "Just wait until tomorrow, because the final test is going to be done and we'll hopefully know what is wrong." I found out later that the tests had already been done and that he had not even been briefed. The situation was a complete shambles.
	I want to share with the Parliamentary Secretary—I have to say that airing the issue publicly has not got me anywhere so far—the fact that I am now dealing with people who are new to their jobs, as others have left, so it continually seems that I am starting again. I am always sent back to the starting point, which is that I must have a round robin discussion with people who were involved in the care. Those people have now left the national health service or moved on, but at the end of the day, once we have had the discussion, I shall still refer the matter to the ombudsman. That is the issue now. At the moment—the case has gone on for almost three years—bits of paper are merely being pushed backwards and forwards. I have no complaint about the way in which Southend deals with problems, but I have a very big complaint about the way in which Redbridge health authority is dealing with this problem, and I would be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would try to assist me in dealing with it. 4.21 pm

Colin Breed: I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I wish to raise a very important constituency issue which has been of concern for some time and which has certainly been given a timely twist in the past day or so.
	Some years ago, when Devonport dockyard secured the contract for the refitting of the Trident submarines, there was great joy and celebration about the fact that such a valuable contract was coming to Plymouth and about the significant economic benefit that it would provide. Of course, some people were very concerned about having nuclear submarines in the Plymouth dockyard, which is very close to the city. Inevitably, over a period, the dockyard had to undergo considerable improvement. A new dock was created and many things had to be put in place to ensure that issues would be settled when the first Trident submarine arrived.
	One of the relatively minor issues—it seemed minor in the initial stages, but grew in importance over time—was the discharge of radioactive waste, especially in association with the submarine's cooling systems. Although there are vast amounts of technical information, I shall speak in layman's terms for the benefit of the House. The issue relates to the water coolant around the nuclear power plant, which becomes radioactive over a period because of its proximity to that power plant. In older type submarines, the tritium—the radioactive substance—is relatively dilute in the water-cooling systems. The new Trident systems have a sealed unit, so the water coolant remains close to the power plant for much longer and therefore becomes much more radioactive.
	Devonport Management Ltd. quite properly sought for the licence arrangements to be altered to ensure that the more highly radioactive discharges could be made in the same way as in the refitting of other submarines. That meant that there was an increase of about 700 per cent. in the radioactivity of such liquid discharges, which clearly concerned a number of people not only in my constituency but in other hon. Members' constituencies close to the River Tamar and throughout the country. Some people became anxious about significantly increasing radioactive discharges directly into the river.
	I have raised the issue on several occasions in an Adjournment debate and through questions. I have held a lengthy correspondence with the Environment Agency. It is disappointing that the first Trident submarine has been in dock for more than a year and that the matter has not been finalised, given that the problem is a likely consequence of refitting the submarine in Plymouth and that that was probably known some years ago.
	A few months ago, I received lengthy and complex reports examining the feasibility of creating a pipeline to discharge the treated radioactive effluent further out into the sea. The research was conducted under the auspices of the best practicable environmental option study. A further study—a radiological assessment of the discharges—has also been conducted. The reports are detailed and identify 11 options for dealing with liquid radioactive discharge.
	The options include: discharge into the river, using the existing pipeline; discharge from an extended pipeline; routing liquid effluent via a sewage works outfall; disposal of liquid effluent by barge in national waters—I particularly favoured that option—and on-site and off-site cementation. No one could suggest that the feasibility study did not examine all the ins and outs of the process. However, it is interesting to note that although DML, the contractors, were extremely keen to maintain the existing system, the radiological assessment of the discharges states that, to stay where we are and bearing in mind that the figures are for comparative purposes, the discharge from the current location of the estimated annual dose of the critical group member is 0.59—I shall not go into detail about what that means—compared with discharge into national waters of 0.00096. In anybody's language, that means that people would be exposed to much less radioactivity if we chose the option of discharge by barge into national waters.
	When we examined the matter further, it became clear that there were anomalies in DML's consideration of the option. I therefore wrote to the Environment Agency to suggest that it re-examined the matter because some of the DML's reasons were contradictory. It kindly wrote back and said that it agreed with me. In its rejection of the option, DML stated:
	"Disposal of liquid effluent by barge in national waters . . . is against DEFRA policy"
	but is not illegal under current UK law. That is important because we were trying to explain the difference between discharging the effluent into the river, which ultimately flows into the sea, and putting it on to a barge. It was argued that it ends up in the same place. However, putting it on to a barge and thus speeding its journey to the sea would satisfy many more people. It would not pollute the river as much as the current discharge and it would cause significantly less radioactive harm.
	It became apparent this week that the European Union has decided that the Government will be threatened with legal action by the European Commission for breaching EU rules on the disposal of nuclear waste. In fact, the Commission says that the UK failed to comply with "major requirements" under EU law, when it authorised nuclear waste disposals last year from Devonport dockyard nuclear plant. The EU health assessment and radiation protection safeguards were ignored, according to the Commission statement.
	The current Euratom treaty obliges all European Union Governments to notify any nuclear disposal plans, so that the Commission can assess the potential health impact on other EU countries. It is only right and fair that it should be given that opportunity before any permissions are given. The Commission then has six months to give its views on these transboundary effects. The treaty also includes a justification principle, under which the benefits of a specific nuclear waste plan must be shown to outweigh any of the detrimental effects. Again, that is easily understood.
	The Commission was informed in January 2002 that the UK Environment Agency was about to authorise nuclear waste disposal from Devonport dockyard, following the refitting and refuelling of the nuclear submarines there. The statement that was made the day before yesterday said that that move was made without taking account of the Commission's job of assessing the plan, and without applying the justification principle, which
	"constitutes a major principle of the radiation protection system".
	I understand that officials have sent a "reasoned opinion" to the Government, setting out their objections and asking for an explanation. That explanation needs to be made much more clear. Having been raising this subject for well over a year and, having been unaware that we were transgressing European Union regulations, I think that it behoves the Government to seize this important subject.
	The current Trident submarine is in dock, undergoing its refit. I do not know whether any discharge of tritium-affected water has yet taken place, or whether the liquid is still being kept on the submarine. Before any discharge takes place, however, the Environment Agency should surely be fully conversant with all the regulations that need to be complied with before any licence is granted. This subject has caused considerable concern for many people. Some scientists believe that tritium is nowhere near as dangerous as many people pretend it to be, while others provide equally expert opinion stating that tritium is a dangerous radioactive material that should be handled very carefully. I do not have a scientific background, and being bombarded by arguments from both sides is sometimes unhelpful. It is also unhelpful for members of the public who are trying to grapple with the issue.
	Many of us believe that the precautionary principle should surround this whole question, and that, as a minimum, we should look into the proper regulation of any discharges and that the Environment Agency should take into account not only domestic DEFRA policy and current UK law but all European Union regulations. This issue has become critical. These matters should have been settled years ago, before the first submarine even came in. We are at a very late stage now. The Commission is clearly unhappy, as are many of my constituents. I think that even the Environment Agency is now beginning to feel that its position is not as solid as it has suggested in the past. It is time for the Minister to advise his colleagues that this issue has to be grasped. It is not going to go away, and a proper policy needs to be developed to deal with it, so that the public know that there is real protection for them.
	It is clear to me that, on a precautionary basis, we should not discharge any radioactive liquid into the River Tamar. At the very minimum, we should be taking it well beyond our coastal waters, although keeping it in our national waters. But surely the best thing to do would be to retain it. We are not talking about huge amounts— not millions of gallons but a few thousand gallons of material that could easily be stored until we had a clear understanding of what we were going to do with it. There is a certain confusion, so if we allow discharges, perhaps under a licence that is not as solid as I believe it should be, we will do a great deal of unnecessary harm and cause alarm for my constituents and many others who live on and around the River Tamar.

Desmond Swayne: Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I want to raise with the Minister the case of my constituent Mr. Alan Clark, who was grossly unfairly dismissed by Hill Samuel, which is now part of Lloyds TSB. The cover-up surrounding his dismissal began in the 1990s and has stretched to this very day. In dealing with that constituency case, I want to touch on more general issues with respect to financial regulation. Indeed, I have a specific proposal for Treasury Ministers.
	In coming across this injustice, I am indebted to our former colleague Sir Tom Arnold, who was Chairman of the Treasury Committee. He drew the case to my attention and, while Chairman of that Committee, also drew it to the attention of the Bank of England. As a consequence of that action, there was an inquiry—at least one carried out by the lawyers of Hill Samuel and Lloyds TSB—although its findings have never been published. I ask Ministers to look into the possibility of securing the publication of that inquiry so that it can be brought into the public domain. However, Sir Tom Arnold's work, with the assistance of Mr. Michael Gross, ensured that legal proceedings took place resulting in a criminal fraud conviction for one of the bank's senior directors, a Mr. Gordon Skingley.
	My constituent Mr. Alan Clark was a director of Hill Samuel bank. He had an exemplary record of service over 22 years, but he was made redundant—I use that term advisedly—days before his 50th birthday. I was in the banking sector in the mid to late 1990s, and I know of many people in similar positions who were made redundant at that time, but the institutions concerned maintained a policy of ensuring that executives, managers and ordinary staff approaching that age could continue until they were 50, owing to the pension arrangements that would kick in when they reached that age.
	I know for a fact that at that time Hill Samuel bank maintained just such a humane policy for its employees. After all, it costs the financial institutions concerned very little, but makes a hell of a difference to the individual. My constituent was made redundant at a cost to him of some 40 per cent. of his accrued pension rights. Why was he made redundant? I believe that it was because he stood up to the said Mr. Skingley, who was subsequently convicted of fraud. He blew the whistle and he was punished for it.
	My constituent had spent 20 years running Hill Samuel's property section and dealing with the property portfolio. After a merger, the said Mr. Skingley took over that department and Mr. Alan Clark began to become familiar with his dishonest ways of doing business and his manipulation and falsification of figures to liquidate the bank's clients to his own advantage. In a particular case, he sought to do just that to Gross-Hill properties, a well-run and profitable property company with a large portfolio of business and freehold property in south Wales in which the bank was the major shareholder. Mr. Alan Clark was the bank's representative on its board of directors. He raised a warning flag, telling the bank's directors that the liquidation was about to take place and that it was out of order and quite improper. Consequently, his unfair dismissal was engineered by Mr. Skingley, who recognised the threat posed to his dishonest schemes.
	I make that assertion on the basis of evidence provided by no less an individual than the then head of personnel at Hill Samuel, Mr. Rodney Gardner. He said that the bank's senior executives, Messrs McCrichard, Barrington and Freedberg, had wrongly supported Mr. Skingley against my constituent.
	Let us contrast the treatment of my constituent with the subsequent treatment of Mr. Skingley once the truth was known and he was convicted of fraud. Mr. Skingley still benefits from his enhanced pension of £50,000 a year. Even if the bank succeeds in freezing it to secure the return of £108,000 that was knowingly misdirected, only two years will elapse before he enjoys the benefits of that enhanced pension again. My constituent Mr. Clark, however, is without 40 per cent. of his rights.
	What has been the reaction of Lloyds TSB to representations made by me, by Sir Tom Arnold and by the former personnel officer of the bank concerned? It has been to sweep the matter under the carpet. The lawyers' report on the goings-on remains secret.

Eric Forth: Why did my hon. Friend's constituent not avail himself of the possibility of going to an industrial tribunal? I assume that he did not do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us about that aspect of the case, if he has not reached it yet.

Desmond Swayne: That is a very fair question, and one that occurred to me when the matter was first brought to my attention by Sir Tom Arnold. When he came to the House with Mr. Clark, he said "When I chaired the Treasury Select Committee I was told about this, and passed it on to the Bank of England. That at least resulted in the inquiry by the lawyers, whose report remains secret. I am no longer in a position to pursue the matter; will you do so?" My immediate reaction was to wonder why Mr. Clark had not taken the case to law at the time. Why had he not availed himself of the tribunal procedure?
	Mr. Clark's answer was this. "I had not yet turned 50. I hoped to use my contacts and networks in the City to secure comparable employment. Let me be realistic and frank with you, Mr. Swayne: if I had expected to secure such employment in the City, I would not have been able to do so had I gone to an industrial tribunal and made such a fist of it."
	That is, perhaps, an indictment of the City and its ways, and perhaps Mr. Clark's estimate was a misjudgment; but that is the case that he made to me at the time. I am not in a position to second-guess his judgment. Time elapsed, however, and eventually the option was no longer available. He pursued his case by other means, and the result was the conviction of his oppressor but no redress from the bank.
	What lesson can we draw from this? We have learned, I think, that we cannot allow the banks to discourage employees from blowing the whistle because they maintain so much power and influence over our financial affairs. I am glad to say that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives the Financial Services Authority a number of mechanisms to promote whistle-blowing of the kind that my constituent had the honesty, decency and bravery to stand up and do. We cannot allow the banks to undermine that through their own policies, as evidenced in this case. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to draw the matter to the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary and find out what safeguards are available to prevent a repetition of the sort of cover-up carried out by Lloyds TSB in respect of the fraud perpetrated by Mr. Skingley.
	I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary discuss with the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary the possibility of establishing supervisory powers within the Treasury itself. An independent supervisor could then independently prepare a report when allegations such as the one that I have brought before the House today are made. Such matters could then be properly investigated. I would feel more comfortable if the Treasury or the Financial Services Authority had mechanisms in place to deal with such obvious injustices.
	We cannot allow Lloyds TSB to conduct a report of its own and then keep it entirely to itself. That is unacceptable. A clear injustice has been committed and an enormous amount of skulduggery and financial impropriety has been uncovered beneath it, but it has not been properly exposed.

Alan Hurst: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in calling me to speak in this afternoon's debate. As hon. Members may have noticed, I was not present for most of the debate. I can pray in aid that I was chairing a Standing Committee, though I am also mindful of the adage that excuses are for losers, so I shall not go further down that path. I always find debates like this profitable and try to contribute when so called. Today, I will be brief.
	I should like to speak about the schools admission policy in my constituency, particularly in the town of Braintree. Hitherto, the town was divided into catchment areas and those living near one senior school could expect to go to that senior school. In practice, three high schools are available: the Notley, the Tabor and the Alec Hunter high schools. The particular problems that I want to highlight relate to the Notley high school in the south-west of the town—an area in which extensive developments have taken place.
	The education authority entered into a policy to guarantee places at Notley high school to a series of villages outside the town. That pledge was given at a time when those villages and that area were comparatively undeveloped. Since then, a vast expansion of population and building has taken place outside the town limits of Braintree, and in some of the parishes that had benefited from the pledge of guaranteed places. Consequently, the number of children taking up guaranteed places at the school from those villages has increased, putting pressure on the number of places available at Notley high school.
	The county council's proposal, currently under consultation, is that there will be no guaranteed places for those living in Braintree, but that such places will remain for those living in the villages outside. That has the ludicrous and singularly unfair consequence that children living next door to Notley high school will in all likelihood not be able to attend that school in future. It has the further problem of breaking up family groups. Older children from the adjacent John Ray primary school went on, in the natural order of events, to Notley high school, but under the new policy their younger brothers and sisters will have to go to other schools. It adds a burden on some parents, who have to ferry children to different parts of the town at the same time. However, the overriding problem is that it makes no sense to parents that they can look our of their window and across the road at the high school—which many attended themselves—yet their children cannot attend it as they had anticipated.
	I have called on the county council to consider the matter in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills. I hope that the school and the local education committee will give serious consideration to expanding Notley high school to accommodate the growth of the population on that side of town.
	I appreciate that it will be argued that vacant places remain in one of the other high schools. However, there is extensive population growth in that part of town too, and it is anticipated that the demand for school places there will also become great in a few years.
	Given the rise in the number of people on the electoral register, I suspect that Braintree may be one of the fastest growing towns in the country. It will need many more school places in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to other Ministers to see whether, through co-operation, some policy can be devised to assist parents and children in the part of Braintree that I have referred to. They may otherwise be denied a place in the school of their choice.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I apologise for not being here from the start, as I was visiting various local organisations in my constituency. One or two issues arose from those visits, and I should like to take this opportunity to mention them.
	Before I speak about those matters, however, I want the Minister to take one message on board. At the present time, our brave servicemen and women are fighting in the Gulf to eradicate the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is very important that those in the Territorial Army be given recognition for the service that they are giving at this time. There is a TA base in my constituency, the 266 Parachute Battery Royal Artillery Volunteers. Its members are currently out in the Gulf, serving Queen and country. I pay tribute to them, and I hope that their needs, and the needs of their families, are not forgotten.
	The spouses and families of permanent service personnel are always given consideration while their relatives are away fighting, but the spouses and families of TA personnel are often overlooked. I hope that the Government will take that into consideration in the coming weeks.
	I also want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to Her Majesty the Queen, who visited the Romford constituency a month ago. It was her first visit to Romford as Queen of our country, and she was received warmly by her loyal subjects there. As the local Member of Parliament, I am very proud that she chose to come to Romford. People who know the town will understand that the people there are very patriotic. We believe in our country, and we fly the Union flag with pride from the town hall every day of the year, and not just on special occasions. In the town centre, market traders regularly fly the flag to show their belief and pride in this country.
	I should therefore like to take this opportunity to mention again to the Minister that perhaps it is time for consideration to be given to following the tradition laid down by Her Majesty the Queen, and to flying the Union flag from the Palace of Westminster throughout the year. It is especially sad that in the summer, when many tourists are in London, one looks at the main flagpole on the British Parliament and sees an empty mast. The time has come to follow the example of Buckingham Palace and to fly the flag throughout the year.
	I should also like to ask why the flagpole on Portcullis house has never been used to this day. It remains empty even on those designated days when the flag is supposed to be flown. In that context, I want to congratulate St. Peter's Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency, which is one of the only schools that I know that flies the Union flag every day from the school building.
	This morning, I met representatives of the local community health council for the London borough of Havering. I ask the Minister to look into the transitional arrangements with regard to the work of local CHCs, given that they are to be abolished later this year. There is a great deal of concern about what is going to replace CHCs and whether the new structure will be as effective as the existing one. The CHCs have done an incredibly good job in representing, from an independent perspective, the needs of patients in all our constituencies. As the Government are abolishing them to replace them with a new system, I hope that Ministers will ensure that the transition will be a good one, that there will be sufficient funding for the new bodies and that co-operation between the Government and the CHCs will continue until the transition period is over. I am afraid that at the moment there is not a lot of confidence in my local CHC that matters are progressing in a way that will benefit my constituents and all those who need to use the services of the CHC.
	I should also like to remember the people of Gibraltar, who are loyally supporting the United Kingdom as our country faces conflict. I hope that the Government recognise the contribution that the loyal people of that British overseas territory make to the support for our country at this time, and that it will not be forgotten in future. I hope that when the Prime Minister meets his counterpart in Spain he will remember that Gibraltar has played a significant role not only in the current situation, but in previous military conflicts. That should not be forgotten either.
	I wish everybody a very happy Easter. Easter is an important time of year for spending time with one's family and for attending church or whatever religious organisation one may choose. It is important that we uphold the traditions of Easter. It is not a matter simply of having a holiday, but of remembering why Easter exists and its purpose. That is why I am delighted that last week in business questions the Minister agreed with my defence of the hot cross bun. Many people have since written to me and contacted me by various means to express their support for upholding our traditions. The absurdity of the local authorities who decided—

Rob Marris: Perhaps I could tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the rumour in the national press that Wolverhampton council has banned the hot cross bun is absolute rubbish. It did not, and would not, because in Wolverhampton we value culturally diverse traditions. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no ban on hot cross buns by Wolverhampton council.

Andrew Rosindell: I am delighted to hear that news. I had not heard that Wolverhampton council had been mentioned in that context; I had heard about other councils. I am delighted that there is consensus on the issue, because many of our constituents are pretty fed up with various forms of political correctness. The important thing is that we respect all religions and traditions in our country. Certainly, Easter is a time of year when we should celebrate, and eating a hot cross bun is very much part of the Easter traditions of this country.
	Finally, I want to mention the Wellgate community farm in my constituency. Next week, it celebrates a special weekend called "Meet the Easter babies", when it opens its gates to local families, children and other residents of the area so that they can meet the new animal babies that have been born on the farm. It is a wonderful local organisation and I commend the idea of community farms to the Minister. They are wonderful for children, older people and those with learning disabilities, who are able to go and meet the animals. I hope that the Government will support such community farms in future—my own local farm and others in the network across the country. They do wonderful work—and what better time to visit a community farm than at Easter?

Andrew MacKinlay: I will try to be brief because I know that others would like to speak in the debate over whether we should adjourn for Easter. One thing that concerns me when we adjourn is that there is no parliamentary scrutiny. I want to raise three issues with the Minister. A few minutes ago, he made a quiet comment from a sedentary position about misreporting. The Government are often misreported, but despite their reputation for presentation, they are sometimes quite powerless in their own interests. I will give a couple of examples of that. The Licensing Bill is at Committee stage just now and it is being said that the Bill will prevent darts playing in pubs and clubs. People know that that is rubbish, but the Government's press and publicity machine should legitimately and vigorously be rebutting that idea. Rather than being great sweeping issues, these are the bread-and-butter issues that our constituents raise in our surgeries.
	My second example concerns airports. I live across the river from Cliffe, which is an option for the new airport. I use the word "option" deliberately, but Cliffe airport is being portrayed by many people as a Government proposal. That is not being rebutted sufficiently. People have a right to understand. There may be ignorance, but the Government are not making it clear that Cliffe is one of many options. I think it would be the wrong choice and am fairly optimistic that it will not be chosen. However, the distinction between an option to be explored and a Government proposal should be made much more vigorously.
	If Parliament closes for Easter, an issue that exercises many hon. Members, but one that will go off the boil, is that of the future of pharmacies. The House of Commons got the message over to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a few days ago that hon. Members from all corners of the United Kingdom and from all political parties would be extraordinarily angry if the Government, after their 90-day consultation period, were to do anything that would harm our local pharmacies. I do not think that the Government will do that, but why stall in announcing the inevitable—that the network of community pharmacies that we have, we will hold? For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government have to deliberate so long. It is bad politics and the view of the House of Commons is overwhelming on the issue. When he reports back through Government machinery to the various Ministers with interests in this, I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the mood of the House of Commons today, as before, was that the matter should not be pursued any further.

Paul Tyler: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that having to wait until July before we receive any sort of response from the Government is entirely wrong. Did the hon. Gentleman notice that, in the debate in Westminster Hall when I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), as to whether the recommendations in the Office of Fair Trading report would require primary legislation as opposed to secondary legislation, he said that he understood that it would require a full Act of Parliament? The hon. Gentleman will share my view that, in the third Session of this Parliament, the likelihood of the Government squeezing such a Bill into the legislative programme is nil. The Government should say so.

Andrew MacKinlay: That is absolutely correct. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I, as a Labour hon. Member, feel frustration that the Government have allowed a thing such as this to run. As I say, they should not do it. I do not think that they will do it and they should kill it dead—for selfish party political reasons as well as for the overriding reason that the House of Commons and the public do not want it.
	The debate also gives me an opportunity to consider the parliamentary calendar. Journalists and some Members of Parliament seem to think that we shall have a shorter summer recess. That is not the case. The dates have been shifted, although there is still an uneven distribution of parliamentary sittings. May I urge the deputy Leader of the House to raise that point with the next Leader of the House? The summer recess dates have changed, but there will still be a long close-down when we shall be unable to ask parliamentary questions, there will be no scrutiny and we shall be unable to hear oral statements. We do not want Parliament to be in continuous session, but many of us want round-the-year sittings that reflect the role of a modern Government. During continuing international and national crises, we need access to Ministers.
	The Government can take credit for the innovation of written statements, although some people feel—with a degree of justification—that some matters are put into written statements when they should be dealt with orally at the Dispatch Box. Overall, however, we acknowledge and welcome the net increase in Government statements.
	I should like to draw the attention of the House to a written statement made earlier this week by the Foreign Secretary. I hope that the House will forgive me for reading it out. It states:
	"I am gravely concerned at reports that Northbridge Services Group, a UK company, is recruiting British, South African, French and other ex-servicemen as military units to work in Côte d'Ivoire. The crisis in Côte d'Ivoire has caused enormous suffering for the people of that country, and threatens the stability of the wider region. The Linas-Marcoussis agreement offers Ivorians the opportunity of a peaceful, political settlement, which addresses the key issue underlying the crisis. Ivorians are now making progress in setting up a broad-based government of National Reconciliation, under the terms of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement. Any deployment of foreign military units at this time would seriously undermine the peace process, and the efforts of the UK and wider international community to support a durable, political settlement. We have made it clear to Northbridge Services Group that the UK Government would deplore any intervention of this sort."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 52WS.]
	I have rarely heard a more pathetic Government statement. To spell it out in plain language: our security and intelligence services rumbled the fact that one of those wretched companies was recruiting mercenaries in the United Kingdom to fight in the Ivory Coast and stir up trouble against our interests and the interests of the people of the Ivory Coast and the international community. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government had made it clear that they would deplore such intervention. I certainly hope so, but why does not the Foreign Secretary do something about it?
	The statement was frustrating because, a couple of years ago, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced a Green Paper on mercenaries—grudgingly. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs had to extract the document from the Government as though it was pulling teeth from an elephant. The Committee deliberated on the matter and received a response from the Government.
	I want all mercenary recruitment stopped; it should be outlawed in this country. At the least, the Committee wanted regulation, but there is none. The Government have shown no enthusiasm to introduce regulation either of the recruitment of mercenaries in the United Kingdom or of their operation from this country; and when something occurs that is against our interests, or those of the international community and, especially, of impoverished, suffering people in war-torn Ivory Coast, they merely say, "We deplore it". I want the Minister to tell the Foreign Office that that will not do. It is a most disappointing response.
	I want to add a view that I have been unable to express on the Floor of the House until now: I believe that the United Kingdom's prosecution of the war in Iraq, although wretched and distressing, is correct. We had little choice in the matter. The Government and the Law Officers have presented a complicated legal case, and I believe that it would have been better summarised by the fact that—this is certainly something that I personally rely on—Saddam Hussein's regime asked for an armistice at the end of the last Gulf war, and it was granted subject to conditions, as armistices are. He abrogated that armistice; no one else did. He never complied with those conditions.
	Of course, in retrospect, we should perhaps have been firmer, sooner in telling Saddam Hussein that he had not complied with the armistice conditions, but we know why we did not. It was politically difficult to take any action, and there was a reluctance to restart hostilities. We had 12 years of trying to say, "Please, nice Mr. Saddam Hussein, will you comply?" When he did not, we tried some other bit of leverage. We applied sanctions, but they did not put any leverage on him, but just hit the Iraqi people.
	The kernel of the legal case and the moral case—I am mindful of the need for proportionality and last resort when justifying how one votes in such matters—is the fact that Saddam Hussein abrogated the armistice that he sought. Since then, there have been considerable and continuing humanitarian atrocities against the people of Iraq—something in which we have acquiesced by our silence, and we can no longer do so.
	I should like to have spoken at greater length to explain my position, but I will not do so because that is difficult for the House. However, the shadow Leader of the House needs to be sensitive to the fact that every Member of Parliament often wants an opportunity to state publicly where they stand. I hope that he and the acting Leader of the House may pick up the fact that, on such grave issues, we should be able to write our views into the Official Report, so that they are on the record and there is no misunderstanding or hiding behind the fact that we have not had an opportunity to be called by Mr. Speaker.

Christopher Chope: I, too, apologise for not having been present at the outset of the debate. I had the pleasure of serving on a Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), and if it had not been for my perhaps all too lengthy participation, he would have been able to speak in this debate even earlier.
	Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I wish to refer to Iraq. We cannot think of ourselves going away for an Easter holiday without thinking about our troops in the Gulf and their families at home going through a very anxious period. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that, when we return after Easter, the war will be won and our troops will be safely home.
	Also like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I wish to refer to community pharmacies. I have presented several petitions covering thousands of my constituents who are worried about the future of their community pharmacies. The Government are in an extraordinary position: I do not know whether other hon. Members are aware that there has been an announcement—a press release no less—by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is responsible for health in Northern Ireland.
	One would have thought that the Under-Secretary was speaking on behalf of the Government when he announced, by press release, that he was rejecting outright the Office of Fair Trading report. He said that the report
	"does not take account of Health Service issues of patient care"
	He added:
	"it has been put to me that deregulation would run the significant risk of reducing access to pharmaceutical services, particularly in rural areas. There may be a reduction and, indeed, a removal of local services in some areas to the detriment of the infirm, the elderly and those less well off in our community. I cannot allow that to happen."
	That is a statement by a member of the Government.
	As has been pointed out in an excellent letter from my noble Friend Lord Fowler in today's Financial Times, that is totally inconsistent with the line being adopted by the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry, where the Secretary of State there has said that we must wait until the end of July before the Government are able finally to pronounce on the matter. Meanwhile, we have had the announcements in Scotland and Wales that they will have no truck with the recommendations in the report. I hope that the Minister can explain how one part of the Government machine can say "no way" to the Office of Fair Trading report and the other part can say, much to the consternation of people in my constituency, that it will have to wait to see what happens and will not tell them until the end of July.
	Another aspect of Government policy that is causing a lot of anxiety is their approach to post office closures. We understand that they say that post offices have to close and recognise what has been said about proper consultation. As the local Member of Parliament, I have been involved in the consultation about two post office closures in Christchurch. Both have been the subject of strong opposition that is represented by letters and petitions, and, I think uniquely, they have engendered the opposition of Postwatch, the body appointed by and paid for by the Government to represent consumer interests on post office matters.
	The first post office closure to which Postwatch objected was at Stanpit, but its objections counted for nothing and the post office closed. We are now in the period after the closure of representations on the future of Town Common post office, and we are waiting anxiously to learn what decision has been reached. If the views of local people, the Member of Parliament and Postwatch on the post office at Town Common again count for nothing, that will drive a coach and horses through any pretence on the part of the Government that the post office closure programme is subject to proper consultation.
	Consultation means listening to what is said in the consultation process. If we are paying for a statutory consultative body such as Postwatch and ignoring its views, there is no point in having it. That shows that the whole process is an absolute sham.
	I hope that the Government will relent in relation to the Town Common closure, not least because the nearest post office is more than a mile away. They have made much play of people in urban areas living within one mile of the nearest post office and ensuring that 95 per cent. of them will be able to continue to do so. In this part of west Christchurch, that principle will not apply.
	Finally, I wish to refer briefly to the council tax, which is causing an enormous amount of anxiety for my constituents, as it is for others elsewhere. We shall have an opportunity to debate this subject at greater length next week, but the Government must realise that the increases in council tax for which they are responsible are totally unacceptable. The increases are engendering an enormous amount of correspondence. I receive many letters in every post from pensioners in my constituency who say that they just cannot afford them.
	I have a letter from a gentleman and his wife that says that they are going to pay what they paid last year plus 1.7 per cent—the amount by which the retail prices index rose in the past year. They say that they have
	"small pensions, we wouldn't qualify for financial help due to means testing as we have some savings, carefully put away over many years and which we shall need in the future to take care of us in old age."
	The Government have not thought through the implications of the sustained very high increases in council tax. They are depriving elderly people of the ability to be responsible for themselves in their old age by taking money away from them. They could never have planned for such spending. A Liberal Democrat councillor in my constituency has suggested that such hard-pressed people should have to sell their homes, but the Government have not come up with an alternative. These people will have an unhappy Easter because of the Government's behaviour.

Eric Forth: This has been an unusually fascinating Adjournment debate, not least because the balance between Members who have raised constituency issues and those who have raised national issues has been about the same. That makes today's debate slightly uncharacteristic, but interesting for that.
	I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not attempt to analyse everything that they have said—they will be far more eager to hear from the Minister than from me. However, I want to maintain the traditions of the House by attempting to do some justice to the debate by winding it up from the official Opposition Front Bench.
	I shall take one salient point from the matters that each of the contributions highlighted. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) referred to the decline in manufacturing, both generally and in his constituency. I think that we would all admit that there has been a secular decline not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the developed world. Legitimately, there is a political element to that debate. Opposition Members feel that many of the measures that the Government have taken have hastened the decline by placing additional burdens on manufacturing industry.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman justified that, and he was politically entitled to do so. The judgment of Opposition and Labour Members differs on how far Government policy has exacerbated the manufacturing sector problem. In the end, the manufacturers will have to make that judgment. We would wish the Government to be somewhat more sensitive to the views of the manufacturing sector before making what often seems to us a headlong rush towards increasing regulations, whether they are justified by health and safety considerations or anything else. We would wish the Government to ameliorate that approach somewhat, to say the very least. Indeed, we would prefer them to reverse it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised an issue that I know worries all of our constituents: the vexed issue of telecommunication masts. As someone who refuses to use a mobile telephone, I feel a degree of virtue which I suspect is not shared by many Members or perhaps by many of our constituents. I am intrigued when anguished constituents approach me claiming that telecommunication masts are harming them, their children or their relatives. It is on the tip of my tongue to say, "Do you use a mobile telephone?", but I stop myself because I do not want to displease them.
	There is a genuine tension between the desire of people to use these damned devices, which I cannot understand, and the technology and equipment that is required to support them. I suppose that I have some sympathy with the Government of the day, who have to resolve the issue. However, what my hon. Friend was saying must surely be reasonable: that whatever knowledge is available should be widely understood and then visibly and palpably used by the Government in the development of their policies. There is a gap between a general understanding of the nature of the problems that have arisen from telecommunication masts, and what appears to some people to be almost a casual attitude on the part of the Government. I hope that the Minister will at the very least be able to reassure us that that is not the case.
	The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) treated us to one of the most comprehensive analyses that we have yet heard in the House about the historical context of the Iraqi conflict. We are grateful to him for that. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman wishes, as perhaps we all do, that that analysis had been better understood before the conflict started and in the long run-up to it. Now that we are where we are, the best that we can hope for is that the points that the hon. Gentleman made will be fully taken into account in the post-hostility reconstruction phase, so that we might at least hope that we can get the best out of the conflict for the people of not only Iraq but the middle east generally. That would be the benefit could accrue from the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised a matter that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton: the tension between our modern desire to be informed instantaneously about everything through the technology that is available to us, and the traditional approach that the military has always taken, which is that what it does should be as confidential, not to say secret, as possible. If we are not careful, an absurd situation will arise. If we are being told what is happening, so are the Iraqis. And if we are not being told what has happened because we have been misinformed, what is the point of the exercise anyway? I find that problem hard to resolve—we have got ourselves into serious difficulties.
	The concept of embedded journalists intrigues me. I wondered whether it was to do with their private lives, but apparently it is not—it is about them charging around in military vehicles. However, I am not sure what their true value is. If they are sworn not to give away anything of military significance, what are they telling us? I sometimes think that the exercise is pointless, and we may learn that lesson once hostilities come to an end.
	The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) returned to the issue of Iraq, and emphasised, like many contributors to the debate, the importance of the reconstruction phase. He also saw a resolution to the Palestine issue as integral to a resolution to the post-conflict problems in Iraq. I doubt whether anyone in the House would disagree with that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised matters that were also raised by many other hon. Members—the closure of pharmacies and post offices, which are of the greatest importance to our constituents, affecting their everyday lives. They are not sure why their local pharmacy or chemist's shop is being threatened, and do not understand why the Government cannot give them an explanation. The Government, however, are in an anomalous position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, if a Minister spills the beans and says, "Don't worry, we are not going to do that at all", that cuts across the point of both the Office of Fair Trading, of which we may or may not approve, and the consultation. If consultation is to be meaningful, we cannot demand instant decisions even from this Government, when one of their legitimate agencies or organs has made a decision.

Andrew MacKinlay: The consultation period is finished—they could kill the idea.

Eric Forth: Well, it is frustrating for our constituents and us to be left in a period of unnecessary uncertainty. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), has done us all a favour. Perhaps as a result of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, we can now go out and tell everyone in the land that a Minister has told us what is going to happen so, based on the doctrine of collective responsibility—if it still exists—we can all sleep in our beds tonight, drugged by products from pharmacies, no doubt.
	The closure of post offices was also raised. Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who are anxious that their local post office will close. In my case, it is the one in Burnt Ash lane in Bromley. Again, there is confusion. On one hand, we are being told that the Post Office is now an independent, robust organisation and must do what it deems to be correct; on the other, there is a duty on the Government to protect the integrity not only of our postal services, but of the community services that have traditionally been provided by our post offices. The Government do not seem to be prepared to grasp that problem and deal with it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, can give us words of comfort on that issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) emphasised the same problem in his constituency, and went on to raise an issue of concern to growing numbers of Members on both sides of the House: the conflicts that have arisen as a result of the change in our working patterns and hours. In fact, today's debate has illustrated that. A number of hon. Members have been performing duties elsewhere, so have been unable to attend the whole debate, thus highlighting the point made by my hon. Friend. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate—he is doing so given the absurd lack of a Leader of the House, which I find increasingly irritating, not to say scandalous—he will be able to tell us that the issue of the hours will be revisited by the House authorities and the new Leader of the House, so that Members who are having second thoughts about the issue will have an opportunity to express their views. If I may suggest it as an intermediate position, perhaps we might reconsider the Tuesday hours, to see whether Monday and Tuesday might be operated on the old hours, with Wednesday and Thursday on the new dispensation. We could at least have a trial to see whether that would help to resolve some of the problems that we are experiencing.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) raised an issue of enormous concern to his constituents and the surrounding area. It was a technical issue, but none the less important for that. His suggestion sounded to my layman's ears all too reasonable—that is, that the potentially noxious discharges should not be allowed to proceed until much more is known about their effect, and until the alternatives have been properly explored. That sounded a reasonable request, as I hope the Minister will agree when he sums up the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) raised his constituent's problem, which I hope will help to resolve it in a way that has not been possible before. I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue his idea of Treasury supervision of the banking sector and that he will receive a positive response.
	I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), not least because, having done my penance in the Department for Education for five years in a previous existence, everything that he said rang all too familiar with me. He seemed to be describing the conflict that arises between local education authority boundaries; the Greenwich judgment, which allows school admissions to cross those boundaries in a way that was not the case before; and class size limitations, which are a new factor that schools must take into account. I would add a further factor: school transport.
	I grappled with those problems for five years, and I never found a satisfactory resolution to them. In the end, one has to make up one's mind that either one has a school admissions policy that allows parents no choice at all—in other words, it states, "Your child will go to the nearest school, regardless"—or one has a policy that tries to open up the system and make it competitive. The inevitable result of that is that many parents will not be able to get their child into the nearest school, or into their school of first choice. I live with that because my local education authority happens to have some very good schools and many of the places are occupied by children from neighbouring boroughs. At this time of year, we all have parents coming to us with the problem, so I feel a great deal of empathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.
	My only suggestion is that the hon. Gentleman take the issues directly to Education Ministers, in an effort to concentrate their minds on the dilemmas and problems that exist, to see whether they can find a way of resolving them. They must be resolved as a matter of national policy, because in a funny way, the more the issue is devolved, the more complex, frustrating and difficult it becomes. I can offer the hon. Gentleman no more help than that, but I recognise the problem.
	I want to wave the flag with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). It frustrates me as much as it does him that our national flag is in danger of becoming something of which people are ashamed. That cannot be right. The symbol of our nation—our national flag—must surely be able to be flown over public buildings with pride. It should not be something for which we apologise or of which we are ashamed in any circumstances that I can think of. I hope that his repetition of the problem will help to move it forward and maintain our pride in one of our national symbols.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised a number of issues—licensing, Cliffe airport, and pharmacies. I am not sure that the issue of mercenaries is as simple as he suggested. If we are proud of the fact that our citizens are free to do as they wish within the law, and if we start to restrict their ability even to become a mercenary, that raises some profound issues of individual freedom, freedom of movement and freedom of choice. There may be some legitimate boundaries to that, but even in this case, we would have to be extremely careful before we rushed in to tackle the problem.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch again spoke about pharmacies and post offices, which affect his constituency as much as any other. We should all be grateful for his revelation about the Northern Ireland Minister, which may have provided us with the solace and comfort that we have been seeking in the matter. Providing that the Parliamentary Secretary will act, as I hope he can, in a spirit of collective responsibility with his Government colleague and confirm what my hon. Friend said, the debate will have been worthwhile.

Ben Bradshaw: I always act in the spirit of collective responsibility, if I may give that assurance to the shadow Leader of the House.
	I should like to begin by making an apology in advance. The low numbers of hon. Members in the Chamber earlier today led me to assume that I would be in for a marathon, as I was in winding up my first pre-recess Adjournment debate back in the summer, when I think that I spoke for 50 minutes and went through every single detail of every hon. Member's speech. I think that that was widely appreciated. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) nods. I shall endeavour to do the same thing today and deal with all the issues, but in case I do not manage to do so, I give an undertaking to hon. Members: if I do not address all the points that they raised, I shall ensure that they are written to about them, as I have done in the past.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) began the debate with a measured and expert assessment of what he saw as the position regarding detainees in Guantanamo bay. I share some of his concerns about the situation and I assure him that the Government are keen for it to be resolved. I repeat to him what the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions—some of the information that is still being gleaned from the detainees is proving extremely important in the ongoing fight against terrorism. None the less, I assure him that the Government are taking his concerns on board.
	My hon. and learned Friend spoke about the very important role of manufacturing industry in his constituency. In particular, he spoke warmly about the role of the Manufacturing Advisory Service. I wholeheartedly concur with him on that point.
	My hon. and learned Friend was also one of a number of hon. Members who spoke about the procedures of the House. In particular, he referred to the way in which we deal with taxation law. He will be aware that we are trying as much as we possibly can to improve and increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny that we conduct. Hon. Members will see that that is the case in the next few months, as some Bills published in draft will receive pre-legislative scrutiny. It is our wish to move to a situation in which that is overwhelmingly the case. On his suggestion that we debate some matters for too long and other matters for not long enough, I guess that that will always be a matter of personal interest in the subject in question, although I hear what he says.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the old chestnut—it is, of course, an important old chestnut—of resurfacing the A30. I hope that she was as pleased as I was with this week's announcement that, far from what was predicted by some doom-mongers nationally and locally who said that the resurfacing would not happen for another 10 years, the job will be in the first tranche of resurfacing to take place by 2007 at the latest. In doing that work, we will be repairing the terrible damage done by the previous Government when they ordered those cheap and very noisy concrete roads. None the less, I shall have words with my fellow Ministers in the Department for Transport regarding the point that she made about the contract and the question whether it might be possible for the Government to recoup all or some of the original cost of the road. If she is right in her assertion that the contracts gave an assurance at the time that was not correct, I shall certainly look into that.

Colin Breed: I am delighted to hear that, but if we wait until 2007, the work will be probably be done approximately when the road was going to resurfaced anyway.

Ben Bradshaw: That is not the case. Until this Government came to power, there was no commitment to resurface all the noisy concrete roads that were commissioned under the previous Government. We said previously that the work would be done within 10 years and we have now brought that forward for a large number of roads, which will be dealt with by 2007 at the latest.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also raised the issue of telephone masts, which I know is of great concern to her; she has been very involved with the campaign in our mutual local newspaper. The Government err on the side of caution. I shall ensure that my ministerial colleagues look into the comments of Dr. Blackwell that she quoted from the Express and Echo, which dealt with the importance of taking into account non-thermal effects, and ensure that she receives a response from them in that regard. I am sure that she is aware that, on 20 March, which can only be a couple of weeks ago or less, the Government announced a further two-year project investigating evidence of ill-health around base stations. I hope that that will help to produce some of the more conclusive evidence that we would all like to see.
	The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say that representatives of the media based in Iraq and the Gulf should exercise responsibility about how much they give away about troop movements. The safety of our forces must always be paramount.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) dedicated his whole speech to Iraq. Indeed, we have had rather an unusual pre-recess Adjournment debate in that so many hon. Members understandably talked about Iraq. My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of what will happen in post-Saddam Iraq. We will be judged on what happens in post-Saddam Iraq. Many who were sceptical of, or in outright opposition to, the decision to take military action want the action to be brought to a swift and successful conclusion now that it is under way. I hope that we can unite not only domestically, but internationally so that the Security Council and the European Union unite behind the post-Saddam Iraq that we all want.
	I prefer to use the word "redevelopment" rather than "reconstruction" because reconstruction implies that we have caused the destruction. We have not, of course, because it has been caused by more than 20 years of Saddam Hussein's terrible dictatorship and misrule. I am sure that hon. Members are well aware that Iraq was wealthier, per capita, than Portugal or Malaysia before Saddam came to power. However, before the conflict started, 60 per cent. of its population was dependent on help from the oil-for-food programme. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It could be wealthy and successful, and I am confident that it will be after Saddam has been deposed and we have had time to help the Iraqi people to redevelop their country.
	My hon. Friend quoted at length from what sounded like an interesting book. I have not read it but I shall have a look at it if I have time. I was not totally convinced by all of what he read. It seemed to suggest that the problem we face in Iraq is that we are a former imperial power. That can be said of a lot of places, and there is a flip side to the argument. When I was the Minister responsible for the middle east, I found that people in the region expect us to get involved and engaged because they think that we bear an extra responsibility because of history, and I think that that is right. My experience showed that people in the Arab world, and especially the middle east, welcome British engagement because they think that we have expertise, and we owe it to them because of history.
	I do not follow the argument that because we, the United States or any other country might have made mistakes in a part of the world, we should not do the right thing now. Several people have written to me about the Iraqi conflict and made that argument, but I do not understand its logic. My hon. Friend said that our history makes it difficult for us to be the shaper of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not want to shape a post-Saddam Iraq because we want the Iraqi people to do that and for Iraq's administration to pass into the hands of free Iraqis as soon as possible.

Harry Barnes: I do not understand how we can avoid getting involved in shaping what will happen in Iraq. If we are a conquering force in the area, even if we get hold of other people and the United Nations, our role will be very significant. The past is a problem. There might be advantages of being an imperial power because we would be known in the area and some people might have liked us. However, many others believe that we adopted an exploitative position.

Ben Bradshaw: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not accept his use of the terminology "a conquering force". We will be a liberating force, and we already are in the parts of Iraq in which the Iraqi people are sufficiently confident to speak freely and where they feel safe from retribution from Saddam's henchmen. My hon. Friend should look at the model of Afghanistan. Of course, our input and that of the international community was important to help the Afghan people to set up their conference and institutions such as the Loya Jirga, but such things were based firmly on Afghan traditions and practices. I can assure him that the same applies in Iraq. It is not in our interests to be perceived as trying to tell the Iraqi people how they should run their country once they have been liberated. In comparison with Afghanistan, Iraq has not only good natural resources but a highly educated work force and 4 million highly educated people in exile. Many may want to return to help with the redevelopment of their country.
	My hon. Friend argued that one of the reasons for inaction was the danger that Saddam might use his chemical or biological weapons. I have never understood the logic of that argument, which suggests that one should do nothing and leave Saddam to continue to develop such weapons and his capability of delivering them further until he poses an even greater danger. Sometimes it is necessary to confront a smaller danger to prevent a greater danger.
	I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism about our ability to help the Iraqis to establish a representative, more democratic regime and I do not agree that the effects will be destabilising to the region. Some people may ask what good stability has done the region in the past few decades, and argue that it needs change, democracy and a few more regimes that respect human rights.
	Many hon. Members mentioned the middle east peace process. I believe that the impact of our actions could be positive. Having been the Minister responsible for the middle east, I know that the Israeli population's reluctance to make some of the tough choices that a peace settlement involves is partly due to feeling threatened by states, including Iraq, which remain dedicated to the destruction of Israel. A different regime in Iraq would make the solution to the middle east peace process easier. It will also encourage the essential engagement of the United States.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was right to point out that, whatever one thinks of President Bush, he is the first American president of any political colour not only to commit America to the creation of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution but to support its enshrinement by the United Nations in resolutions. We must use our influence to ensure that he stands by that commitment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire has anxieties about the creation of a Kurdish state. Again, I should like to reassure him. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who visited Iraq, said that the position in northern Iraq had changed. Thanks to the democracy that is enjoyed there, the people have overcome their traditional rivalry and their desire for a Kurdish state. They want autonomy in Iraq, with its borders intact. There is general international agreement about that.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), like several other hon. Members, dwelt on the media coverage of the war and some of the comments attributed to the Home Secretary. As a former journalist, I take a close interest in that. I agree with hon. Members who said that the journalists out there have shown immense courage. It is not an easy job. It is paradoxical that being in Baghdad is currently almost easier than being embedded. The journalists who are embedded with the forces have not had a shower for weeks and are living in difficult conditions. However, by and large, they are doing a tremendous job.
	Sometimes the journalists in Baghdad do not do enough to remind their audiences of the restrictions under which they operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North mentioned the case of the journalists who had been freed after being imprisoned in Iraq. The reporting from journalists who have lived among the Iraqi people and subsequently leave Iraq is different from that of journalists in Baghdad, who are not allowed to say what they want and cannot contact the people they want. A classic example is Johann Hari, the columnist from The Independent, which is an anti-war newspaper. He used to be anti-war but he spent three months in Iraq and wrote that people approached him with the words, "Are you British? Please liberate us." I also think that the BBC and other broadcasters and journalists are sometimes reluctant to make a value judgment about regimes. I believe, as a democrat, that democracy is good, or better. Sometimes, journalists who enjoy the freedoms of a democracy are reticent about making a value judgment that suggests that our form of government, our freedoms or our democracy are better than the system under which the Iraqis have suffered for so long.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall also asked why no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. That was a bit of a naive question. It is early days, and that is not the main priority of what we are doing at the moment. I draw to his attention the Northern Ireland analogy. We all know that the IRA has had weapons for 30 years. That is widely acknowledged, but we have never been able to find them. So it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I confident that, when the regime in Iraq falls and its true nature is revealed, his concerns will be allayed.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said that none of us could trust what the Saddam regime said. I thought, however, that he was rather unfair about the newspapers. There has been a lively debate in the newspapers in this country, as there has here. They have not all been blindly supportive of what is going on. The polling of newspaper readerships has also been interesting, in that it reveals that the prejudices of a newspaper's readers does not necessarily reflect the editorial line that that newspaper has adopted on the Iraqi conflict. The hon. Gentleman also hoped that what was going on was not distracting people's attention from domestic issues. We do not have control over that, and, as he rightly said, The Independent did a big piece today about all the so-called bad news that people have not noticed because there is a war going on. As I said at business questions earlier, I could equally point to lots of good news that has not been given very much attention because of the military conflict.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North rightly drew hon. Members' attention to the most recent accounts of journalists who had been held captive in Baghdad and who are now free. He robustly—and, I think, rightly—defended the military action that we are taking. He also rightly reiterated the importance of the hearts and minds operation, which I think is becoming more successful every day as parts of southern Iraq are liberated. It is very difficult for us to imagine what it is like to live under that kind of tyranny. People say, "Why aren't they all jumping up and down and throwing flowers over the troops?" In some places, they are, but they are doing it only when they feel really safe to do it, and when it can be guaranteed that there is no chance that we will leave again—after what happened in 1991—or that the militia and informers who still live among them will not take their revenge. That is absolutely right. I have said before that part of a successful outcome will be our not staying longer than is absolutely necessary. I have also mentioned the importance of making progress on the middle east peace process.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point kicked off his local election campaign with a litany of complaints that made his constituency sound like a bit of a disaster area, although I am sure that it is not. He confidently predicted many gains for his party in the local elections. We shall see. He also complained about the recent local council tax increases. We can all trade stories about that. In my area, for example, my prudent local Labour council in Exeter is putting up its council tax by only 5.7 per cent., even though it received the same amount of money as the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-dominated county council, which is raising its council tax by 18 per cent. We can all trade these examples, but the fact remains that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government have increased spending on local authorities by 25 per cent. in real terms, compared with a 6 per cent. cut under the previous Conservative Government.
	I am afraid that it was in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I had to go out and get a doughnut, so I am sure that I missed a number of the important constituency points that he raised. If I did miss any, I promise to get back to him. I came back as he was saying some very sensible things about Iraq and describing the success of democracy in northern Iraq, from his own experience of visiting the area. He also made a number of recommendations that I am not sure are official Conservative party policy, but don't worry, I shall definitely go and check. If they are not, I shall let my party know.
	The hon. Gentleman also revealed the true, Europhobic face of the Tory party at the end of his speech. When I looked in "Dod's", I noticed that the UK Independence party got a vote bigger than his majority at the last election, so I can understand why he did so.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised the issue, of which I was aware, of his constituent who is still awaiting trial in Egypt. The hon. Gentleman has had discussions with Baroness Amos and, indeed, the issue has been discussed by the Prime Minister and the President of Egypt. I shall pass on the request. In my experience, the Egyptian ambassador is a charming man, and I shall mention the issue when I see him next.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the outcome of his local planning appeal. Of course, he cannot expect me to comment, as it is a local planning matter, and, as he said, we will have to wait and see whether the applicant appeals. A number of Members, including him, referred to the hours of the House. I think that all those who complained voted against the change, so their complaints are largely to be expected, but I am afraid that they will have to wait a while. There may be teething problems and if there are difficulties with Committees meeting at certain hours there may be things that can be done, but thinking that we will go back to the bad old days after only a few weeks is to hope for too much. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made clear at the time, the changes that we voted for are for this Parliament, so I do not think that it will be possible to hold a review before it ends.
	One reason for the GP vacancies up and down the country is that we are creating a lot more places and it takes time to train GPs. There is a particular problem with single practices, which the hon. Member for Southend, West will be aware of, arising from the Shipman inquiry, but I shall look into the cases that he raised and get back to him.
	The hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), raised certain cases, one involving the giving of bad financial advice and the other a distressing example of a whistleblower who was badly treated. It sounds to me as though both show a need for better regulation of financial services, which is great to hear from the Conservatives as they are usually complaining about there being too much regulation and the Government being too active. We certainly hear that complaint often from the shadow Leader of the House. I will look into the cases that have been raised and get back to Members. On the health authority complaint raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West, I think, if I understood him rightly, that he is still going to the ombudsman. I wish him well in that endeavour.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) raised an issue that is important to his constituents—the discharges in connection with work at Devonport dockyard. I understand that he has been in regular communication with the Environment Agency, and I shall endeavour to get an update for him, given the European Commission statement to which he referred. As he acknowledged, however, there are always two sides to this argument. It is a very difficult subject.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) raised the inability of some parents to get their children into the school of their choice, which will be an important issue to his constituents. A number of us have had that experience, as I have in my constituency, because the population is growing in a particular area or a school is becoming much more popular. In most cases, it is usually possible for the school to expand a little, at least temporarily, although that may not be so in that of his school. However, I am surprised at a policy that involves dividing siblings, which is unusual, so I shall write to the Department for Education and Skills and ask it to respond to his points. I shall also ask whether the solution that he suggests might be considered by it and whether it can encourage the local authority to do so.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) is always flying the flag. I think that he made his name during the general election campaign: did he not have a dog with a Union jack coat? I have some sympathy on this. The flying of flags here is, I am told, a matter for Black Rod, so the hon. Gentleman might like to make representations there. Also, he may be interested to know that I had a constituency case in which building workers flew a Union flag because of what is going on in Iraq, but they were told to take it down by the foreman as there was a worry that the site would be picketed by anti-war protestors. It is ridiculous.
	I notice that the hon. Gentleman is wearing flag of St. George cuff links—very tasteful. I am all for reclaiming the flag of St. George and the Union flag as well as hot cross buns for Easter. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was able to put on record the facts about his authority. Such stories tend to get blown out of proportion, and we cannot always believe everything we read in the newspapers. That is perhaps a good point to finish.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put. PETITIONS

General Practitioners

David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition from Doctor, which has organised a campaign called "Save our single-handers". Signatures have been gathered from all over the country, and the petition involves many local practitioners whose patients value their work and are very upset by what the Prime Minister said in the House a year ago.
	The petition reads as follows.
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Doctors supported by those signatories whose signatures are appended.
	Sheweth,
	Their concern at the comments of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury during Prime Minister's Questions on 3rd July 2002 to the effect that "There has been a move over time away from single-handed practices so as to improve the quality of care that people receive", and also their concern that he has not been able to cite any evidence to support his supposition.
	Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury to apologise for his aforementioned comments of 3rd July 2002 which have caused discontent amongst patients and General Practitioners.
	And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Hearing-impaired people

Bob Spink: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of all people with hearing impairment, particularly those living in south-east Essex. We must listen to what these worthy and caring people have to say, and promote equal access for disabled people and inclusive design to make television, radio and telephone equipment useful for those with impaired hearing without adaptation. I warmly congratulate the members of the Benfleet hard of hearing club on their community-spirited action in collecting signatures for the petition, which reads as follows.
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Mrs. Irene Haylock, Ashleigh Sharp, Jessica Arnold, members of the Benfleet Hard of Hearing Club, and others of like disposition sheweth
	That there are some 8.7 million hearing impaired people in the UK and without changes in legislation, and particularly in the Communications Bill, technology and commercial developments will leave them under increasing disadvantages and will increase the extent of the digital divide whereby disabled people will be left further behind and more seriously discriminated against.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to implement changes in the Communications Bill to end exclusion for hearing impaired people from digital TV, Radio and telephone services.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

TOM COOKE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Peter Duncan: I welcome the Minister. We have not met before on the occasion of a health debate. As she knows, in Scotland health matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This, however, is a particularly unusual case which has given me a constituency interest in health services in England.
	A couple of Members, having seen the Order Paper, naturally asked me "Who is Tom Cooke?" They wondered whether he was an important person of whom they should have heard. I told them that, having read the report of this debate in Hansard, they would probably appreciate the significance that Tom Cooke might have, and realise that he would prove in due course to be a very important person.
	As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Members are often presented with tragic cases by constituents. Many of those cases seem to involve injustice on a disturbing scale. The sad death of Tom Cooke and the issues raised by his death combine both. Tom's mother and father, Lauren Devine and Gordon Cooke have sought my involvement to bring a focus on Tom's case and draw attention to their plight as they strive to deal with the ongoing consequences more than two and a half years after his death in June 2000.
	Tom's birth and short nine-day life were beset with negligence on behalf of the United Bristol Healthcare Trust—UBHT—and covering up by that organisation when challenged. That this cover-up culture persisted, after the Bristol heart inquiry and the Kennedy report were supposed to have brought it to an end, is a scandal in itself. The Kennedy report highlighted a culture of failure and cover-up in Bristol. There was clearly organisational failure and a culture that was developed in the interests of the trust, and not of the patients in their Bristol hospitals.
	The Secretary of State, in responding to a debate in the House, accepted Kennedy's recommendations and sought to reassure the public that the Government would address the failures. He said:
	"In essence, our response to Kennedy falls into two parts. The first includes the organisational and cultural changes needed to put the patient at the centre of the NHS. The second involves the changes needed to assure quality and secure improvements in services."—[Official Report, 17 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 449–50.]
	The issues raised by the death of Tom Cooke expose those same failures, and many more. Although we were told that it could not happen again, it clearly has.
	Lauren and Gordon had two children already before Tom. Both are healthy and happy and are now attending primary school in my constituency. Tom was born with catastrophic brain injury after antenatal care for Lauren went badly wrong. As a measure of that failure of care, Lauren's period of labour extended to some 62 hours, but UBHT midwifery staff failed to accelerate her care in proportion to the danger faced by both mother and baby.
	That the antenatal care fell below the standards that should be accepted is clear. What is also clear is that UBHT sought to brush the tragedy under the carpet. Some months later, long after Tom had died, Lauren still had possession of her antenatal case notes. They had never been collected, never been checked and never been analysed to learn the lessons. Lauren had to return copies voluntarily so that Tom's file at the hospital might be completed. Put simply, the instinctive reaction of UBHT was to deny, evade and deflect possible criticism—exactly the same denials, evasions and deflection that had characterised the previous scandal in Bristol.
	Tom was born on 20 June 2000, severely handicapped and with significant brain damage. Lauren was also severely weakened by the birth and a traumatic labour. At this stage, significant confusion and, perhaps, obfuscation developed between the two roles of treatment and research. In the immediate aftermath of the birth, was Tom being treated for his condition, or was he being researched as part of a trial? It has since emerged that consent was gained from Lauren for Tom's entry into a research programme. At the time, Lauren had a haemoglobin level of 6.4—half the normal value—and was clearly in no fit state to make any decisions of that nature. Her assent to treatment was obtained, when in fact it was a research programme into brain cooling equipment. Despite the treatment being presented as being necessary to help her son, it has since emerged that in fact Tom was to be used in the research as a control. He was to be given no treatment.
	Equally reprehensibly, Gordon and Lauren were kept away from their son during this period. As a parent myself, I cannot begin to contemplate the isolation that was inflicted upon them, at such a desperate time. Further, Lauren's consent to the recording of a video of Tom's "treatment" was sought. She declined to give that agreement, but the video was produced in any case. This kind of appalling side-stepping and reversal of the express wishes of parents shows what failure remained at UBHT. Action is now required to ensure it cannot happen again.
	Tom died nine days after his birth, at a point when relations between the parents, the doctors and the research team had reached a low point. Lauren and Gordon were given Tom to take home, as they were told he was going to die that day. No advice was given as to how to make his remaining hours comfortable, and no real guidance was given as to why Tom should have been taken home to die. No instructions were given on how to feed him liquids. The House should remember that this was a child—a person—who could not swallow.
	It is now clear that when Tom died, some 10 hours after leaving the hospital, he was probably malnourished, and deprivation of liquids clearly played a significant part in his passing.
	That this case is tragic is not in doubt. The Department of Health must address the following questions. What action has been taken to learn the lessons of the midwifery failure that contributed in large part to this tragedy? Why are the procedures for obtaining parental consent for research trials so routinely bypassed, and why is the division between research and treatment so obviously blurred? What can be done to bring an end to the attempts by UBHT to airbrush out inconvenient patient episodes?
	As I mentioned earlier, it was five months before Lauren contacted the hospital to inquire what lessons had been learned—a perfectly reasonable request. The error of the hospital's failure to reclaim Lauren's case notes came to light during that conversation. They are always held by the patient during antenatal care, but should always be returned afterwards—UBHT knew that, but the airbrush had been used to fine effect.
	The fact that Lauren is a qualified barrister obviously raised suspicions that she would not be easily placated. The ongoing heart inquiry, leading to the Kennedy report, meant that her silence was vital. After she was warned to keep quiet, the story takes a turn for the worse.
	In order to silence Tom's parents, the totally unfounded allegation— subsequently proven to be inaccurate—was made that Lauren had threatened to harm her other children. It was absurd. It was highly damaging to the family, and the allegation was subsequently rejected.
	These allegations—involving child protection issues—are covered by the Children Act 1989. Quite properly, the legislation seeks to allow the holding of information on those deemed to be a threat to children. But surely the allegations that are recorded must be accurate. I refer to an answer that I received to a written question in which I asked what guidance was given to Government Departments in dealing with information on individual files that have been accepted as inaccurate. The reply was:
	"General guidance on compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 is issued by the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner's booklet, "The Data Protection Act: Legal Guidance", contains a section on complying with the requirement in the 1998 Act's fourth data protection principle that personal data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date."—[Official Report, 21 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 283W.]
	In fact, despite the fact that they have been rejected by Bristol's social services department, the allegations and the subsequent profiling of Lauren have been unstoppable. UBHT achieved what it wanted—the silencing of a dangerous irritation to their club culture, at a time when further exposure of its failings would have been fatal for the organisation.
	The allegations remain on file. Indeed, should Lauren or Gordon seek to request details on their child protection allegations on file, their inquiries themselves would be treated as further incidents of concern.
	These inaccurate allegations spread like wildfire throughout the social services and healthcare network. Lauren and Gordon found their other children affected at their schools, and they were affected at their work. All of that was based on deliberate inaccurate allegations, and all of it deliberately designed to maintain Lauren's silence. It is worth noting that those allegations were distributed on an unsolicited basis—they were even sent to my region, Dumfries and Galloway, the family's new home, when there was no reason for that to happen. It is not in doubt that there was systemic failure at UBHT. Kennedy made that clear. It also made it clear that this is an organisation that will do absolutely anything to cover up bad news.
	As I said, Lauren is a barrister. She is a specialist in child protection issues, so she knows her and Gordon's rights as Tom's parents. Surely the Data Protection Act 1998 would force the release of their records from UBHT and allow proper scrutiny of the facts. In fact, the trust has even evaded its responsibility to hold and release information as it is required to by law. Some limited releases are only now being made. One of the items that could—indeed, should—have been released is the video that was made of the research trial against the express wish of Tom's mother. That was prevented by Department of Health officials breaching confidence and relaying the subject of a private meeting with the DOH's investigation and inquiry unit to the hospital. The video was destroyed by the trust. That is unbelievable deception and an extraordinary failure of the system.
	This raises serious questions. If the Department of Health's own inquiry team cannot be depended upon for action, who can? In the system for scrutiny after the Bristol heart scandal there were supposed to be new channels to ensure independent scrutiny of failures. In fact, for my constituents, there seems to be no such independent channel. An inquiry was offered to Tom's parents, but only by someone overseen by the chief executive of UBHT. That is no way to ensure patient confidence. Given the nature of their treatment over the past months, is it any wonder that Lauren and Gordon would have no confidence in such an option? Where, after the Kennedy report, is the new openness and accountability? Where is the confidence-building independent scrutiny? Many quangos have been created, but none is delivering material improvement in the system of governance and inquiry.
	It is obvious that the system is failing in forcing compliance on errant trusts. How can the Secretary of State for Health, who has ultimate responsibility, ensure that trusts comply with his wise words and his directives? It was impossible to force UBHT to release that research video—instead, they destroyed it. The Secretary of State is the legal owner of trust records and files, yet has no power to ensure that they are held and used properly. The Department has long been aware of the scale of injustice that has been inflicted on Lauren and Gordon and their children. It now needs now to do something about it.
	Closure is required for this family. The best form of closure would be the knowledge that a tragedy like theirs could not happen again. During the time since Tom's death, that has been at the forefront of my constituents' minds. Confrontation has been, and will remain, the last resort. The family have offered to engage constructively with the Department to work through the issues involved, and I hope that the Minister will seize that initiative today.
	The Minister has to address three fundamental issues on which the case rests, as well as many other issues. How can the Department of Health be sure that it cannot happen again? Why is there is no independent mechanism for governing such disputes? How can false allegations stay on file? The Kennedy report had fine objectives. It made 198 recommendations which together and over time would help change the culture of the NHS, which according to the inquiry needs to be
	"a culture of safety and of quality; a culture of openness and of accountability; a culture of public service, a culture in which collaborative teamwork is prized; and a culture of flexibility in which innovation can flourish in response to patients' needs."
	We are still some way from that fine objective. A human tragedy has been transformed into huge failure on the part of the UBHT. It cannot be allowed to happen again.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) for raising in the House this evening the important question of patient safety. I join him in expressing my sadness at hearing about the tragic death of Tom Cooke, aged only 9 days.
	The issues concerning the family and raised by the hon. Gentleman have been raised with the Department already. They have also been raised with the trust, which conducted a review of a number of issues that were raised by the family and which provided a report to the family on 8 May 2001. My officials have met Tom's mother and her representative and have worked to find a way forward to meet their concerns. The outcome of that discussion was an offer to set up a review that was independent of the trust concerned. The review would be conducted by an independent lawyer and would consider all the family's concerns—including their treatment by the trust before, during and after Tom's birth.
	Although the review would have been conducted under the second stage of the NHS complaints procedure, the reviewer would have been entirely independent of the trust, with his or her final report being made to the chief executive and the board of the trust, as well as to the Department. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the family. We were also unable to pursue an offer that was made by the chief executive of the trust to meet the family and their representative at the Department's offices to discuss the issues.

Peter Duncan: I will try not to interrupt the Minister's flow. Does she accept that the independent inquiry that was offered was to be appointed by the chief executive of UBHT? There needs to be some avenue that is entirely independent of an errant trust; otherwise, how can patients trust the system?

Hazel Blears: I understand that the offer was of an independent lawyer to review all the circumstances. That offer would have been a way forward, had it been accepted by the family, who could then have reported to the board allowing decisions to be made on the issues. The review would have been conducted in an entirely independent way. I am sure that we could have built in requirements to ensure that the review was independent. The offer remains open to the family. It is an avenue that I would urge the parties to pursue, because it is important that the issues are explored as fully as they possibly can be.
	While discussions were going on to try to find a way forward, the family, through their lawyers, issued a pre-action protocol. That has the effect of staying proceedings under the complaints procedure, because we cannot pursue complaints or concerns using internal procedures at the same time as we are dealing with those same or related complaints and concerns by way of legal action. Now that we have the pre-action protocol, we cannot pursue the NHS complaints procedure—which is the procedure to use for dealing with matters in the health service.
	There should however be no suggestion that the possibility of a review has been closed to the family. We have been entirely clear that the question of an independent review may be revisited to deal with any outstanding issues when any legal action has been concluded. There has been an allegation that negligence proceedings, if pursued, would deal only with some issues of concern to the family, and that there could be outstanding issues remaining. An independent review could pick up on any outstanding issues that were outwith the legal proceedings. It is entirely right and fair that that should be the case and that all the concerns that have been raised by the family should be investigated properly. That leaves open the question of the appropriate means of addressing a whole range of those concerns, but if there is going to be legal action, that legal action has to take place before we can see what issues outwith the legal action then need to be considered.

Peter Duncan: Does the Minister accept that part of the reason for the pre-action protocol was to secure the information that the family needed from the files? That process is still not complete. The family still cannot be sure that they are in receipt of all the information that is being held—information that they are entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998. They are entitled to information and that was part of the reason for instigating some of this action.

Hazel Blears: It is right that the family, through their lawyers, should be able to pursue the information that they would need to prepare their case if they wished to embark on legal action. I do not know the individual circumstances of this case, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that the way in which he has presented this case today suggests that he has concluded that these matters have been investigated and decided. They have not been decided. I should be loth to conduct the debate with the sense that matters had been proven. The hon. Gentleman has used phrases such as "the matter was proved beyond doubt", or "the case is beyond doubt". Some of those matters have not been explored. The trust vigorously defends many of the allegations. I certainly do not know the truth about that individual case. Such matters will be explored through litigation, or properly investigated under the NHS complaints procedure or through the option of the independent review that was offered by the Department. I cannot say whether the allegations are proven. That is the basis on which I make my comments on the case.
	It is right that I should point out that the trust concerned has an international reputation in the field of neonatal medicine and the care of children. In a recent review of clinical governance, undertaken by the Commission for Health Improvement, it was described as
	"being seen as a centre of clinical excellence",
	with "good outcomes of care". Good-quality clinical governance has to be based on robust evidence-based medicine, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees. That requires good research, and it is important that patients and their families understand the context in which such research takes place. I realise that that issue is of concern to the family.
	Before I deal with the issues on patient safety that have been raised, I want to comment on several specific matters. First, there has been a suggestion that Tom Cooke was the subject of research without consent. That is an extremely important matter on which I cannot comment, as it is likely to come into any legal action. However, any treatment given to a child, including treatment given during a research trial, should be subject to the consent of a person with parental responsibility for that child. The Department of Health's guide on consent to examination or treatment makes it crystal clear that consent is a key requirement. I understand that, in this case, written consent was in fact given by both parents.
	Secondly, the hon. Member suggested that social services involvement was inappropriate in this case.

Peter Duncan: Before the Minister moves away from the research, will she confirm that no consent was given to the taking of the research video?

Hazel Blears: I am not aware that specific consent was sought for particular elements of the research. My information is that written consent was given by both parents, but I do not know whether the different elements of the research were identified in the written consent; nor am I aware that it would be common practice to go through each such item when seeking consent. I am not in a position to provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. I am sure that an examination of the records would make clear the basis on which consent was sought and given. If there were an independent review of these matters, I am sure that point would be at the heart of the process.
	I want to comment on the position of social services. Local authorities are responsible for decisions that they reach about individual children. Ministers cannot intervene in individual cases such as this, nor would it be appropriate for me to comment on cases involving social services that may become the subject of court proceedings, if that is indeed the route that the parents propose to take.
	The Government and I appreciate that there can be serious consequences for an individual if allegations against him or her are unproven. Equally, that needs to be contrasted with the serious effects on children if allegations are not believed or not taken seriously. We all know of circumstances in which children's complaints have not been taken seriously, with terrible results. Although some allegations of abuse will inevitably be mistaken, misplaced, or even false and motivated by malice, we must never encourage a culture of non-interference, of turning a blind eye or passing by on the other side. We must not prevent people from speaking up and raising their concerns. Such matters need proper investigation, and to be confirmed—or not; and appropriate action should be taken. We must make sure that we listen both to children and to those who speak on their behalf.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the destruction of the video when the Department raised the matter with the trust. The Department was genuinely trying to find a way forward for the family, and wanted to establish whether it was possible to locate the video and a blanket that had belonged to Tom. The family specifically asked for the video of Tom not to be played again and to be passed to them with no copies left in existence. That message was relayed to the trust and, in fact, the video was deleted from the researcher's laptop.
	The Department did not ask for that video to be destroyed; nor did we establish who owned it or whose decision it was to destroy it. Those issues have been discussed with Tom's mother, and they certainly could be included in any independent review. If Tom's mother or her adviser wants to make that matter the subject of a complaint, it can be pursued, but the Department certainly did not ask for that video to be destroyed; it was simply seeking a way to obtain it, so that it could be given back to Tom's mother, as she had requested.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to sharing information and said that, by making such a request, the Department could have been in breach of its duty of confidentiality to Tom's mother. Again, all the action taken by the Department in this case has been intended to try to find a way to resolve some of those very difficult issues for Tom's family in their relationship with the trust, but I do not think that a great deal of progress will be made until a review, investigation or litigation takes place to find out the truth of the allegations.
	I want to reassure the House and the hon. Gentleman about how seriously the Department of Health views patient safety and about all the measures that have been put in place in the light of the Bristol report. After the Bristol report, we said that it was important to change the culture in the NHS, that there needed to be more openness and transparency, and that patients needed to be involved in the service, driving up standards.
	The measures that have been put in place since the Kennedy report into the events at Bristol are very wide-ranging indeed. We have introduced new systems for patient and public involvement, patient advice liaison services, a new regulation for health care professionals to regulate the clinicians involved, the new independent inspectorate for the NHS, the National Patient Safety Agency, a new independent look at children's health services, and better leadership and modernisation in the service. There has been a real drive to ensure that we change that culture, because clinical governance, patient safety, openness and transparency are of the utmost priority in the health service.
	Finally, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. He says that there is no independent mechanism to govern such disputes. Yes, there is: the NHS complaints procedure, which is the appropriate way to pursue such matters. I urge the hon. Gentleman and the family concerned to take that case forward. He asks how we can be sure that such things will not recur. We have not inquired into the facts, as I have explained, but all the measures taken following the Bristol report should ensure that we create a culture in which such matters can certainly be addressed, so that the NHS ensures—
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.